The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2015/08/10 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda Monday, August 10, 2015 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California • Chairman: Michelle Lieberman • Chairman Pro-Tempore: Mitchell Caldwell • Commissioners: Paul Bostwick, Bill Dalati, Grant Henninger, Victoria Ramirez, John Seymour • Call To Order - 5:00 p.m. • Pledge Of Allegiance • Public Comments • Public Hearing Items • Workshop on the Anaheim Canyon Specific Plan • Commission Updates • Discussion • Adjournment For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretary. A copy of the staff report may be obtained at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. A copy of the staff report is also available on the City of Anaheim website www.anaheim.net/planning on Thursday, August 6, 2015, after 5:00 p.m. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda (other than writings legally exempt from public disclosure) will be made available for public inspection in the Planning Department located at City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, during regular business hours. You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planningcommission@anaheim.net 08/10/15 Page 2 of 5 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIONS Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use Permits, Variances, Public Convenience or Necessity Determinations, Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 calendar days after Planning Commission action unless a timely appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied by an appeal fee in an amount determined by the City Clerk. The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing. If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 5:00 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. 08/10/15 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing Items ITEM NO. 2 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00281 (DEV2015-00068) Location: 2300 South Lewis Street and 2337 South Manchester Avenue Request: To Pre-Zone an approximately 395 square foot portion of property located in the City of Orange to the “RM-4” (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone to facilitate a boundary reorganization that would detach the property from the City of Orange and annex the property into the City of Anaheim. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 19 (Annexations of Existing Facilities and Lots for Exempt Facilities) Categorical Exemption. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 (DEV2015-00065) Location: 2210 & 2220 East Orangewood Avenue Request: To permit a beer tasting room with an outdoor patio within a portion of an existing industrial building with fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code (Golden Road Brewery). Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether to find the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines as a Class 11 (Accessory Structures) Categorical Exemption. Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Amy Vazquez avazquez@anaheim.net 08/10/15 Page 4 of 5 ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A VARIANCE NO. 2015-05000 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00367 (DEV2015-00003) Location: 1731 West Medical Center Drive Request: To construct a two-story, 58-unit expansion to an existing 194-unit senior apartment building with fewer parking spaces than required and a higher floor area ratio than permitted by the Zoning Code. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. ______ Resolution No. ______ Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net A WORKSHOP WILL BE PRESENTED ON THE ANAHEIM CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN Adjourn to Monday, August 24, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. 08/10/15 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 3:30 p.m. August 5, 2015 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COUNCIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION The City of Anaheim wishes to make all of its public meetings and hearings accessible to all members of the public. The City prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. If requested, the agenda and backup materials will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Any person who requires a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting may request such modification, accommodation, aid or service by contacting the Planning Department either in person at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, or by telephone at (714) 765-5139, no later than 10:00 a.m. one business day preceding the scheduled meeting. La ciudad de Anaheim desea hacer todas sus reuniones y audiencias públicas accesibles a todos los miembros del público. La Ciudad prohíbe la discriminación por motivos de raza , color u origen nacional en cualquier programa o actividad que reciba asistencia financiera federal. Si se solicita, la agenda y los materiales de copia estarán disponible en formatos alternativos apropiados a las personas con una discapacidad, según lo requiere la Sección 202 del Acta de Americanos con Discapacidades de 1990 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132), las normas federales y reglamentos adoptados en aplicación del mismo. Cualquier persona que requiera una modificación relativa a la discapacidad, incluyendo medios auxiliares o servicios, con el fin de participar en la reunión pública podrá solicitar dicha modificación, ayuda o servicio poniéndose en contacto con la Oficina de Secretaria de la Ciudad ya sea en persona en el 200 S Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California, o por teléfono al (714) 765-5139, antes de las 10:00 de la mañana un día habil antes de la reunión programada. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 10, 2015 SUBJECT: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00281 LOCATION: 2300 South Lewis Street and 2237 South Manchester Avenue Ponderosa Mobile Home and RV Park APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant and property owner is Joel Farkas, representing Ponderosa Mobile Estates, LLC. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to “pre-zone” an approximately 395 square foot portion of property located in the City of Orange to the “RM-4” (Multiple-Family Residential) Zone to facilitate a boundary reorganization that would detach the property from the City of Orange and annex the property into the City of Anaheim. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution, determining that this request is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) and approving Reclassification No. 2015-00281. BACKGROUND: This approximate 395 square foot property is a portion of a parcel of land that was inadvertently included within the boundaries of the City of Orange during the vacation and abandonment of an easement. This portion of the parcel is located at the southeast corner of the property and is currently used for RV parking. On May 12, 2015, the Orange City Council approved support of an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for the detachment of this property from the City of Orange to the City of Anaheim. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to pre-zone an approximately 395 square foot portion of property to the “RM-4” Zone to facilitate a boundary reorganization that would detach the property from the City of Orange and annex the property into the City of Anaheim. No development is proposed as part of this request. State law permits a city to pre-zone property adjoining the city for the purpose of determining zoning that will apply to the property in the event of subsequent annexation to the city. Pre-zoning becomes effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00281 August 10, 2015 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS: The property is designated for Medium Density Residential land uses by the General Plan. The Medium Density Residential land use designation is intended to provide a quality multiple-family living environment and is typically implemented by the RM-3 and RM-4 zones. The proposed pre-zoning of this property to the RM-4 Zone is consistent with the General Plan land use designation. Olson Urban Housing has submitted an application for residential development for the portion of the property operating as an RV park, including the subject 395 square foot portion of the property, This development proposal is not a part of this application and will require consideration by the Planning Commission at a future public hearing. The proposed development does not include the portion of the property developed as a mobile home park and no mobile homes would be affected by the project. The applicant has requested the pre-zoning of the property to the RM-4 zone prior to annexation because State law prohibits changing the zone or the land use designation of the project area for two years following the date of annexation. It is anticipated that any residential development proposal would include a reclassification of the remainder of the RV Park from the Transition Zone to the RM-4 Zone. The pre-zoning of this property to the RM-4 zone would be consistent with goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which includes providing a variety of quality housing opportunities to address the City’s diverse housing needs. Environmental Determination: Based upon the fact that there will be no change to the existing use of this 395-square foot portion of the property as a result of this proposal, the proposed pre- zoning will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. Therefore, the request is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2). While the owner of the property has indicated a desire to develop the RV Park for residential housing, the pre-zoning of the property does not involve any commitment to any specific project. Residential development of the RV Park is subject to separate discretionary approvals by the City and review under CEQA. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the request to Pre-Zone this property to RM-4 Zone is appropriate because it is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan. Further, this request facilitates the correction of an inadvertent mapping error in the City’s boundary line through the LAFCO reorganization process. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this Pre-Zone request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Vanessa Norwood Ted White Associate Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Reclassification Resolution 2. Letter or Request 3. City Boundary Exhibit 4. Chronology of City Boundary 5. Aerial Photograph R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E R S - 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y R E S I D E N C E TMELROSE ABBYCEMETERY C-GRETAIL R M -4 D U P L E X R M -4 F O U R P L E X C-GRETAIL T (MHP)PONDEROSA MOBILE ESTATES C -G V A C A N T E SIMMONS AVE S W I N D G A P D R W TILLER AVE W SIRIUS AVE N M A N C H E S T E R A V E S W O O D R I D G E D R N M A N C H E S T E R A V E S S U N N I N G D A L E C I R ANAHEIM WAY W C O M P T O N A V E S A N C H O R S T S M A N C H E S T E R A V E N L E W I S S T E CHAPMAN AVE S L E W I S S T 5 FREEW AY 5 FREEWAY E. KATELLA AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY 2300 & 2337 South Manchester Avenue DEV No. 2015-00068 APN: 137-451-35 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 Meyer Reorganization Subject Property E SIMMONS AVE S W I N D G A P D R W TILLER AVE W SIRIUS AVE N M A N C H E S T E R A V E S W O O D R I D G E D R N M A N C H E S T E R A V E S S U N N I N G D A L E C I R ANAHEIM WAY W C O M P T O N A V E S A N C H O R S T S M A N C H E S T E R A V E N L E W I S S T E CHAPMAN AVE S L E W I S S T 5 FREEW AY 5 FREEWAY E. KATELLA AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE S . H A R B O R B L V D E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY 2300 & 2337 South Manchester Avenue DEV No. 2015-00068 APN: 137-451-35 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 Meyer Reorganization Subject Property [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2015-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00281 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. (DEV2015-00068) (A 395 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF 2300 SOUTH LEWIS STREET AND 2237 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to "pre-zone" a 395 square foot (approximate) parcel of land (herein referred to as the "Pre-zone Parcel") that is presently located within the City of Orange but is a part of that certain real property located at 2300 South Lewis Street and 2237 South Manchester Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"). The petition is designated as Reclassification No. 2015-00281 and sometimes referred to herein as the "Proposed Project"; and WHEREAS, the Pre-zone Parcel is currently a portion of land connected to the Ponderosa RV Park. The Pre-zone Parcel is located within the boundaries of the City of Orange and is proposed to be annexed into the City of Anaheim by the owner of the Property. The Anaheim General Plan designates a portion of the Property for "Medium Density Residential" land uses; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests to pre-zone the Property to the "RM-4" Multiple- Family Residential Zone in connection with its application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to have the Pre-zone Parcel annexed to the City; and WHEREAS, State law permits a city to pre-zone property adjoining the city for the purpose of determining zoning that will apply to such property in the event of subsequent annexation to the city. Pre-zoning becomes effective at the same time that the annexation becomes effective; and WHEREAS, pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (herein referred to as the "CEQA Guidelines"), and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual, the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Reclassification No. 2015-00281; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds and determines that (1) there will be no change to the existing uses of the Pre-zone Parcel as a result of proposed Reclassification No. 2014-00264, (2) proposed Reclassification No. 2014-00264 does not involve a commitment to any specific project which may be proposed on the Property to which the Pre-zone Parcel is attached, (3) the Proposed Project will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and, therefore, is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines; and - 2 - PC2015-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 10, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. The proposed Pre-Zoning of this Parcel to the "RM-4" Multiple-Family Residential Zone is consistent with the Property’s existing “Medium Density" land use designation in the General Plan. 2. The proposed Pre-Zoning of this Property is necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community and is compatible with the surrounding properties. 3. The proposed Pre-Zoning of the Property does properly relate to the zone and its permitted uses locally established within and in close proximity to the Property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the City. The proposed “RM-4” zone is consistent with “Medium Density" land use designation in the General Plan. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to the above findings, this Planning Commission does hereby approve Reclassification No. 2015-00281 to authorize an amendment to the Zoning Map of the Anaheim Municipal Code to Pre-Zone the Pre-zone Parcel into the "RM-4" Multiple-Family Residential Zone. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall not constitute a rezoning of, or a commitment by the City to rezone, the Pre-zone Parcel; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of the City Council, which shall be a legislative act, which may be approved or denied by the City Council in its sole discretion. - 3 - PC2015-*** THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 2015. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 10, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of August, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 4 - PC2015-*** ATTACHMENT NO. 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 MAN C H E S T E R A V E MAN C H E S T E R A V E PO N D E R O S A M O B I L E E S T PO N D E R O S A M O B I L E E S T Meyer Reorganization (RO 15 - 01) G:\150804_Ponderosa\Ponderosa_30sc_150805.mxd Aerial Date: 11/04/2014Exhibit 2 8/5/2015 0 6030Feet Annexation Area ATTACHMENT NO. 5 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 10, 2015 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 LOCATION: 2210 and 2220 East Orangewood Avenue (Golden Road Brewing) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The agent is Michael Labdon with PBL Engineering representing the applicant and property owner, Golden Road Brewing. REQUEST: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow a beer tasting room with an outdoor patio within a portion of an existing industrial building with fewer spaces than required by the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, determining that this request is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (Class 11, Accessory Structures), and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05811 and Variance No. 2015-05026. BACKGROUND: This 2.5-acre property is developed with a 59,500 square foot industrial building. The property is located in the Industrial (I) and the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay zones. The General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use land uses. The property is surrounded by industrial uses to the south, east and west across Dupont Drive and a future mixed-use residential project and Angel Stadium of Anaheim to the north across Orangewood Avenue. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to construct a 720 square foot tasting room within the existing industrial building and an adjacent 900 square foot outdoor patio in the parking lot on the west side of the building. The tasting room and patio would be used to serve specialty beers produced at the Los Angeles facility of Golden Road Brewing. The intent of this tasting room is to create a temporary facility for customers to preview specialty beers while the remainder of the industrial building is under construction for future permanent brewing, restaurant and tasting room operations. The tasting room would be open from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. Three employees would be on-site at all times during operation and security personnel would be on-site during the hours of increased business activity. The industrial building on the subject property on Orangewood Avenue is currently vacant. The applicant’s future plan is to improve the entire industrial building for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 August 10, 2015 Page 2 of 4 beer manufacturing, tasting areas and a restaurant. Golden Road Brewing was founded in 2011 in Los Angeles. The new facility would allow Golden Road Brewing to expand its current brewing operations and have a presence in Orange County within the Platinum Triangle. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The Zoning Code requires a conditional use permit in this zone to authorize the sale of alcoholic beverages in a tasting room in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. Recent amendments to the Zoning Code permit breweries with accessory tasting rooms without the need for a CUP in most commercial and industrial zones in the City; however; a CUP is required in this case because the beer tasting room would operate on a temporary basis, prior to any on-site brewing operations on the property. The proposed beer tasting room is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan by adding to vitality of the Platinum Triangle as “a thriving economic center that provides residents, visitors and employees with a variety of housing, employment, shopping and entertainment opportunities”. The beer tasting room is compatible with the industrial uses in the immediate vicinity of the property because the peak operating time for the proposed use would be during off-peak hours for the surrounding industrial uses. In addition, the beer tasting room is proposed as a short-term use until permanent improvements including brewing operations, a restaurant and tasting room are developed on-site. The tasting room and outdoor patio are located at the west side of the property fronting onto the parking lot facing Dupont Drive and are not directly adjacent to any of the surrounding properties. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 August 10, 2015 Page 3 of 4 The location is within Police Reporting District No. 2228, which has a crime rate that is below the citywide average. There have been no calls for service to this location in the last year. The crime rate within ¼ mile of this property is 63 percent below the citywide average. Several conditions of approval have been included in the draft resolution to ensure that the business is operated in a responsible manner. These conditions include a prohibition on any exterior advertising of specific alcoholic beverages, security measures to be provided to the satisfaction of the Police Department, and requiring ABC LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs) training for all employees. Parking Variance: A variance shall be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; 2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and 5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The Zoning Code requires that the parking demand be calculated by combining the needs of the beer tasting room, outdoor patio and the industrial building. The property requires a total of 118 parking spaces; 27 parking spaces are required for the beer tasting room and outdoor patio, and 91 spaces are required for the industrial building. The property contains a total of 56 parking spaces. The applicant submitted the attached Parking Justification Letter indicating that over 98 percent of the industrial building would be unoccupied and non-operational while the tasting room is open. The letter also states that the tasting room is a temporary installation in order to create customer familiarity with the product and location of the future brewery. The 56 parking spaces on-site would provide more than twice the required number of spaces for the tasting room and patio. A limited number of parking spaces will be utilized by construction CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 August 10, 2015 Page 4 of 4 vehicles when the brewery improvements take place, but the peak hours of the tasting room would occur during evenings and weekends and construction activities are anticipated to occur Monday through Friday during regular business hours. Staff believes that the number of parking spaces on-site would be adequate to accommodate the proposed tasting room and outdoor patio without impact to the surrounding public streets or properties. Additional parking analysis will be required for the ultimate use of the property as a brewery, restaurant and tasting room. CONCLUSION: The proposed beer tasting room would complement existing nearby businesses and entertainment venues. The recommended conditions of approval would ensure that the sale and consumption of specialty beers would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Adequate parking is provided on the property to accommodate the use. Staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Amy Vazquez Ted White Contract Planner, Lilley Planning Group Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Conditional Use Permit Resolution 2. Letter of Request 3. Parking Justification Letter 4. Police Memorandum 5. Photographs 6. Plans I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area CVACANT I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area CVACANT I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area CVACANT I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area CVACANT I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM PR (PTMU)StadiumANGEL STADIUMOF ANAHEIM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM O-L (PTMU)OrangewoodOFFICES C-G (PTMU)OrangewoodOFFICES O-L (PTMU)OrangewoodOFFICESI (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)OrangewoodIND. FIRM I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area BIND. FIRM I (PTMU)Gateway Sub-Area BARCHSTONEAPARTMENTS E ORANGEWOOD AVE S D U P O N T D R S T O W N E C E N T R E P L E. KATELLA AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY 2210 East Orangewood Avenue DEV No. 2015-00065 Subject Property APN: 083-272-01 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 E ORANGEWOOD AVE S D U P O N T D R S T O W N E C E N T R E P L E. KATELLA AVE S . H A S T E R S T E. ORANGEWOOD AVE E. CHAPMAN AVE E. GENE AUTRY WAY 2210 East Orangewood Avenue DEV No. 2015-00065 Subject Property APN: 083-272-01 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 - 1 - PC2015-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 AND VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00065) (2210 AND 2220 EAST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning Commission") did receive a verified petition to approve (i) Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05811 to permit a beer tasting room with an outdoor patio within a portion of an existing industrial building, and (ii) Variance No. 2015-05026 to allow fewer parking spaces than required by the Anaheim Municipal Code (the "Code") (collectively referred to herein as the "Proposed Project") for premises located at 2210 and 2220 East Orangewood Avenue, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 2.5 acres in size and is currently developed with an industrial building. The Anaheim Genreral Plan designates the Property for Mixed Use land uses. The Property is located in the "I" Industrial Zone and in the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("PTMU Overlay Zone"), meaning that the provisions of the PTMU Overlay Zone shall apply to the Property in addition to and, where inconsistent therewith, shall supersede any regulations of the "I" Industrial Zone of the Zoning Code (the “Code”); WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 10, 2015 at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05811 and Varaince No. 2015-05026, and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, as the "lead agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”), the Planning Commission finds and determines that the effects of the Proposed Project are typical of those generated within that class of projects (i.e., Class 11 – Accessory Structures) which consists of construction, or replacement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional, and that, therefore, pursuant to Section 15311 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Proposed Project will not cause a significant effect on the environment and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA; and - 2 - PC2015-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2015- 05811, does find and determine the following: 1. The proposed request to permit a beer tasting room with an outdoor patio within a portion of an existing industrial building is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under the classes of allowable primary uses set forth in Table 10-A (Primary Uses: Industrial Zone) as "Bars and Nightclubs", as referenced in paragraph .0402 of subsection .040 of Section 18.10.030 (Uses) of the Code. 2. The proposed conditional use permit to permit a beer tastng room and outdoor patio, as conditioned herein, would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the beer tasting room would be located within a small portion of an existing building surrounded by compatible buildings and uses. 3. The size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the beer tasting room and outdoor patio in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the facility would be located within an existing industrial building that is surrounded by industrial and mixed use land uses. 4. The traffic generated by the beer tasting room and outdoor patio will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use. 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will continue to be integrated with the surrounding mixed use area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim. WHEREAS, because the number of parking spaces required by the Code for all uses, including the Proposed Project, is less than the actual number of parking spaces that exist, a variance must be approved for the Property; and WHEREAS, based upon the request letter submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (118 spaces required; 56 spaces proposed) 1. The variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the Property, including the proposed beer tasting room and outdoor patio, than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to all uses at the Property under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such - 3 - PC2015-*** uses. With respect to the other industrial use, the observations made by staff indicate that the number of parking spaces needed and used therefor are less than the number of spaces that exist, let alone the minimum number of spaces required by the Code since the industrial building is currently vacant and unoperational; 2. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the on-site parking will adequately accommodate the peak parking demands of the combined uses on the site; 3. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the Property because the on-site parking for the industrial building, including the proposed beer tasting room, will adequately accommodate peak parking demands of all uses on the site; 4. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the Property because the Property provides adequate ingress and egress points, which are designed to allow for adequate on-site circulation; and 5. That the variance for the Property, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property because the Property has existing ingress or egress access points that are designed to allow adequate on-site circulation and, therefore, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the Property. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. - 4 - PC2015-*** NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. No. 2015-05811 and Variance No. 2015-05026, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property under Variance No. 2015-05026 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05811 in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition, (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 5 - PC2015-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim held on August 10, 2015 by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of August, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM - 6 - PC2015-*** - 7 - PC2015-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05811 VARIANCE NO. 2015-05026 (DEV2015-00065) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS 1. Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the business owner shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Planning & Building Department, Code Enforcement Division 2. The business shall be operated in accordance with the Letter of Request submitted as part of this application. Any changes to the business operation as described in that document shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director to determine substantial conformance with the Letter of Request and to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 3. There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this condition. Police Department 4. Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police Department 5. Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code). Police Department 6. Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police Department 7. There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police Department 8. The number of persons attending the event shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Police Department - 8 - PC2015-*** NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT Department. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on an approved sign near the main exit from the room. (Section 25.114(a) Uniform Fire Code). 9. There shall be no amplified music in the patio area. Police Department 10. Managers, owners, and wait staff need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Police Department obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 11. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police Department 12. Individual signs shall be posted inside the tasting room and patio near all exit doors, including the patio entrance/exit stating "No alcoholic beverages allowed past this point." Police Department GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 14. The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division 15. The premises of the fitness facility shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner, which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning & Building Department, Planning Services Division July 29, 2015 City of Anaheim Planning Department Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Blvd., 1st Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Attn: Amy Vazquez Contract Planner Subj: Letter of Operation Anaheim Warehouse Development New Tasting Room Project - 2210/2220 East Orangewood Ave. Gentlemen, The proposed project by Golden Road Brewery (GRB) at the subject location consists of a 720 square-feet beer tasting room to be installed within an existing 58,500 square-feet, unmanned, unoccupied warehouse. An outside patio area of approximately 900 square feet will be adjacent to the tasting room. The location borders the southern perimeter of Angels’ Stadium. One manager’s office is included, as well as separate mens and womens restrooms for patrons. The Owners are proposing to operate the tasting room from 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. every day of the week. At a minimum, three personnel will be onsite at all times: one bartender, one office manager, and one general worker. During hours of increased business activity, additional personnel will be at the site, including security. GRB will be transferring beer kegs from their Los Angeles Facility, to a new, refrigerated, walk-in cooler, to serve beer (only) to customers. A three- compartment sink will exist for beer glass cleaning. TV viewing will be available to the customers, and neon-lighting advertising will exist on the new, lockable, storefront door/window assembly. A section of the perimeter fencing will be replaced, and the outside patio area will be fenced off with a new wrought-iron fence, to allow a bonded area, and produce curb appeal. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 The tasting room is a temporary installation, to generate customer familiarity with the product and the location, while a simultaneous engineering and design effort is occurring to renovate the entire warehouse building. The envisioned renovation currently involves a new, two-story pub-restaurant, viewing deck, beer garden, micro-brewery, etc., with supporting offices, cold storage, inventory, and shipping operations. The tasting room area and outside patio is a bridging concept which eventually will be incorporated into the overall building modification during this remodel. The goals of the tasting room concept are safety, cleanliness, and good- neighboring policies, which will offer positive social gathering activities for the city residents. Thank you for this opportunity. Golden Road Brewing, Inc. ____________________________ Jon Lerdsuwanrut Director of Engineering Golden Road Brewing 5430 W San Fernando Rd. Los Angeles, CA 90039 JL:ra July 29, 2015 City of Anaheim Planning Department Planning Services Division 200 South Anaheim Blvd., 1st Floor Anaheim, CA 92805 Attn: Amy Vazquez Contract Planner Subj: Parking Justification Request Anaheim Warehouse Development New Tasting Room Project - 2210/2220 East Orangewood Ave. Gentlemen, The proposed project by Golden Road Brewery (GRB) at the subject location consists of a 720 square-feet beer tasting room to be installed within an existing 58,500 square-feet, unoccupied warehouse. An outside patio area of approximately 900 square feet will be adjacent to the tasting room. The location borders the southern perimeter of Angels’ Stadium. As noted on the submitted conceptual drawings, there is more than sufficient parking onsite to handle that required by the relatively small square footage of this tasting room/patio footprint, especially in light of the fact that 98.8% of the existing warehouse will still be classified as empty, unmanned, and non- operational. More importantly, from a business standpoint the tasting room is a temporary installation, to generate customer familiarity with the product and the location, while a simultaneous engineering and design effort is occurring to renovate the entire warehouse building. The envisioned renovation currently involves a new, two-story pub-restaurant, viewing deck, beer garden, micro-brewery, etc., with supporting offices, cold storage, inventory, and shipping operations. The tasting room area and outside patio is a bridging concept which eventually will be incorporated into the overall building modification during this remodel. The ATTACHMENT NO. 3 various parking issues will be formally addressed during this overall building renovation. Thank you for your time in this review. Golden Road Brewing, Inc. ____________________________ Jon Lerdsuwanrut Director of Engineering Golden Road Brewing 5430 W San Fernando Rd. Los Angeles, CA 90039 JL:ra City of Anaheim INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE To: Amy Vazquez/Planning Department Case No.: DEV 2015-00065/CUP 2015-05811 Golden Road Brewing, Inc. 2210 – 2220 E. Orangewood Ave. Date: July 30, 2015 From: Lieutenant Tracy Hittesdorf Anaheim Police Department Vice, Narcotics and Criminal Intelligence Bureau Commander Contact: Name: S.P.S.R. Michele Irwin Phone: 714-765-1461 Email: mmirwin@anaheim.net The Police Department has reviewed the above case. Please see the following comments and conditions for more information: COMMENTS: The Police Department has received an I.D.C. Route Sheet for DEV 2015-00065/CUP 2015-05811. The applicant is requesting to permit a brewery with indoor and outdoor tasting areas. This location is within Census Tract Number 761.01 which has a population of 8,933. This population allows for 5 off sale Alcoholic Beverage Control licenses and there are presently 5 licenses in the tract. It also allows for 10 on sale licenses and there are presently 8 licenses in the tract. This location is within Reporting District 2228 which is below the city average in crime. There have been no calls for service to this location in the last year. The ¼ mile radius surrounding this location is also below the city average in crime. The calls for service primarily consisted of: 7 petty thefts, 7 vandalisms, 7 auto burglaries and 6 simple assaults. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Police Department requests the following conditions be placed on the Conditional Use Permit: 1. Any Graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee shall be removed or painted over within 24 hours of being applied. Police Department ATTACHMENT NO. 4 2. Security measures shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct of employees and patrons, promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles, and to prevent disturbances to the neighborhood by excessive noise created by patrons entering or leaving the premises. Police Department 3. Any and all security officers provided shall comply with all State and Local ordinances regulating their services, including, without limitation, Chapter 11.5 of Division 3 of the California Business and Profession Code. (Section 4.16.070 Anaheim Municipal Code) Police Department 4. The business shall not be operated in such a way as to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Police Department 5. Petitioner shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage or commission to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. Police Department 6. There shall be no entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premise at any time unless the proper permits have been obtained from the City of Anaheim. Police Department 7. Managers, owners, and wait staff need to call the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and obtain LEAD (Licensee Education on Alcohol and Drugs Program) Training. The contact number is 714-558-4101. Police Department 8. There shall be no admission fee, cover charge, nor minimum purchase required. Police Department 9. Signs shall be posted inside the patio exit doors stating “No alcoholic beverages allowed past this point.” Police Department Concur: Office of Chief of Police f:\home\mmirwin\CUP\2015-00065 DEV 2210-2220 E Orangewood Golden Road Brewery.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 5 1617 F D E G H C B A 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 REVISIONS initialsnumberdate location description OWNER File Name 8 7 REFERENCES approved Designer Assistant Last Update Drawn By Checked BY Scale DATE 6 APPROVED 16 J 17 K L 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 354 DATE F A B 2 1 C D E G H J K 5 4 3 2 1 L CLIENT:DRAWING NUMBER: WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF PBL. PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY FURNISHED AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED OR COPIED OR USED FOR ANY THIS DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF PBL (818) 262-4056 CA 91380 SANTA CLARITA P.O. BOX 800742 CONSULTANT BRIGHTON ENGINEERING INC. (949) 440 - 3221 ENGINEERING, INC. IRVINE, CA 92612 GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY ANAHEIM, CA. NEW BEER TASTING ROOM PROJECT 1063-C-1 A SCALE:1"=30'-0" EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLAN 2210 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. APPROX. SQ. FT. 28,300 APPROX. SQ. FT. 28,700 2220 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. D U P O N T D R . D U P O N T D R . 14 S P A C E S 13 S P A C E S 3 S P A C E S A IFA907/15/15 MV MV MBL W W W W W W 0' 5' 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE:1"=30'-0" S F F S S F F S S EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLAN DETAILED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN 6 9 ' - 6 " 16 SPACES63'-0"112'-10"113'-4"63'-4"+/- 2 5 4 ' 2 5 0 ' 50'-9" 51'-8" 16 SPACES PERIMETER FENCE DEMO (E) WEST N GATE & FENCE DEMO (E) ROLLING ATTACHMENT NO. 6 1617 F D E G H C B A 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 REVISIONS initialsnumberdate location description OWNER File Name 8 7 REFERENCES approved Designer Assistant Last Update Drawn By Checked BY Scale DATE 6 APPROVED 16 J 17 K L 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 354 DATE F A B 2 1 C D E G H J K 5 4 3 2 1 L CLIENT:DRAWING NUMBER: WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF PBL. PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY FURNISHED AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED OR COPIED OR USED FOR ANY THIS DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF PBL (818) 262-4056 CA 91380 SANTA CLARITA P.O. BOX 800742 CONSULTANT BRIGHTON ENGINEERING INC. (949) 440 - 3221 ENGINEERING, INC. IRVINE, CA 92612 SCALE:1"=30'-0" 2210 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. APPROX. SQ. FT. 28,300 APPROX. SQ. FT. 28,700 2220 E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. E. ORANGEWOOD AVE. D U P O N T D R . D U P O N T D R . 2 8 S P A C E S 15 SPACES W W W W W W 0' 5' 10' 20' 40'80' SCALE:1"=30'-0" S F F S S F F S S (720+/- SQ. FT.) (N) TASTING ROOM AREA (900 SQ. FT.) OUTSIDE SEATING PROPOSED SITE PLAN TOTAL BUILDING AREA=58,500 SQ. FT. OCCUPANCY AREA % BLDG.SQ. FT./SQ. FT. REQ'D SPACES SPACES # OF REQ'D. /BAR TASTING ROOM PROPOSED PARKING SPACES EXIST. PATIO 720 17/1000 SQ. FT.13 TOTALS 1,000 17/1000 SQ. FT.17 1,720 30 APPROX. LOT SIZE 107,000 SQ. FT. 6 S P A C E S 2 H / C S P A C E S TYP. TYP. T Y P . VAN SPACES 53-PARKING SPACES 2-H/C PARKING 1-VAN SPACE 56 4 S P A C E S SEE DRAWING 1063-A-2 FOR PARKING SPACE DETAILS TYP. 18' 8 ' - 6 " 50'-9"6 9 ' - 6 " 51'-8" 113'-4"63'-4"+/-112'-10"63'-0" 24'-0"18'18' 2 5 0 ' 2 5 4 ' 5 ' 2 1 ' - 3 " 3' IFA90MV7/15/15A MV MBL NEW BEER TASTING ROOM PROJECT DETAILED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PROPOSED SITE PLAN GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY ANAHEIM, CA.1063-C-2 A N 1617 F D E G H C B A 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 REVISIONS initialsnumberdate location description OWNER File Name 8 7 REFERENCES approved Designer Assistant Last Update Drawn By Checked BY Scale DATE 6 APPROVED 16 J 17 K L 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 354 DATE F A B 2 1 C D E G H J K 5 4 3 2 1 L CLIENT:DRAWING NUMBER: WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF PBL. PURPOSE OTHER THAN FOR WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY FURNISHED AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED OR COPIED OR USED FOR ANY THIS DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL PROPRIETARY INFORMATION OF PBL (818) 262-4056 CA 91380 SANTA CLARITA P.O. BOX 800742 CONSULTANT BRIGHTON ENGINEERING INC. (949) 440 - 3221 ENGINEERING, INC. IRVINE, CA 92612 SCALE:3/16"=1'-0" PROPOSED LOCAL FLOOR PLAN 0'5'10'20' @ 8' A.F.F. BTM. OF CEILING OFFICE- 144 SQ. FT. 12'x12'= DWG. #1063-A-1 LAYOUT SEE FOR RESTROOM ROOM MEN'S SQ. FT. 120+/- 10'x12'= SEE DWG.# 1063-S-3 12' A.F.F.- BTM. OF CEILING @ & CHAIRS BY OTHERS) TASTING ROOM(TABLES 20'x36'=720 SQ. FT. BY OTHERS PATIO-TABLES, CHAIRS BONDED OUTDOOR 20'x50'=1000 SQ. FT. (N)PARKING 1063-S-2 DOOR AREA. SEE DWG# AND DOORS IN 12'x12' STOREFRONT WINDOWS SCALE:3/16"=1'-0" WALL (E)6" BUILDING DWG. #1063-S-1 IRON FENCE SEE 4' HI. WROUGHT 1 0 6 3 - S - 6 1 PATH OF ACCESS 1. ALL UTILITIES TO BE FIELD-ROUTED FROM EXISTING. NOTE: 24'-0" 5' 20' B.O.P. @ 2'-3" B.G. (E) 4" DRAIN LINE, F LOC.'S) (TYP. 2 E D 1 ROOM WOMEN'S SQ. FT. 120+/- 10'x12'= CLEARANCE REQ'D. CONNECTION, 5' (E)"Y" FIRE DEPT. 12' 20' IFA90MV7/15/15A MV MBL NEW BEER TASTING ROOM PROJECT DETAILED ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PROPOSED LOCAL FLOOR PLAN GOLDEN ROAD BREWERY ANAHEIM, CA.1063-C-4 A N 1 2 ' - 4 " 12' 1 2 ' 1 2 ' 3 6 ' 20' 8' A.F.F. CEILING @ BTM. OF (U.N.O.) WALL PANELS- (N)4" FOAMGLAS STUD WALL (N)4" METAL 3' 5 ' M I N . (N)BAR SINK (N)CABINET W/ 9'20"9' 4 5 ' 1 0 ' 5' DWG. #1063-C-5 (N)BAR SEE REFRIG. BOX (N)8'x20' 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net City of Anaheim PLANNING DEPARTMENT There is no new correspondence regarding this item. 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Suite #162 Anaheim, CA 92805 Tel: (714) 765-5139 Fax: (714) 765-5280 www.anaheim.net ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT City of Anaheim PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT DATE: AUGUST 10, 2015 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A, VARIANCE NO. 2015-05000 AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00367 LOCATION: 1731 West Medical Center Drive (Emerald Court) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: The applicant is Marco Vakili with Kisco Senior Living, represented by Gladys Bowen with Shelter LLP. The property owner is Property Reserve, Inc. REQUEST: The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 58-unit expansion to an existing 194-unit senior and assisted living facility with fewer parking spaces than required and a higher floor area ratio (FAR) than permitted by the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolution, approving and adopting a Negative Declaration for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3640, Variance No. 2015-05000 and Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00367. BACKGROUND: This 6.9-acre property is comprised of two parcels. The northern parcel is developed with a three-story, 194-unit residential building that includes 148 independent senior living units and 46 senior assisted living units. The southern parcel is improved with a large lawn area and parking and provides vehicular access to the northerly parcel. The property is located in the General Commercial (C-G) Zone and the General Plan designates this property for Institutional land uses. Surrounding land uses include the SR-91 freeway to the north, medical offices to the south across Medical Center Drive, a Toyota dealership to the east and a mobile home park to the west. The senior and assisted living facility was approved by the Commission in 1985, with amendments approved in 1988 and 1993. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests approval to expand the existing 194-unit facility with 58 additional assisted living units, for a total of 252 units. The proposed building would connect to the existing building and would share its central kitchen, trash and service areas. Common areas include a dining room, wellness center, bistro, living room, activity room, puzzle room, family room, beauty salon and administrative offices. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A August 10, 2015 Page 2 of 5 The expansion would result in an increase of 63 new residents and 10 new employees per shift, with three shifts in a 24-hour period. Access to the site is provided via two driveways along Medical Center Drive. The existing entry driveways, fire lane access road and service drive will remain in place. Existing gates on the east and west sides of the building would be removed to allow circulation to flow around the perimeter of the site and open up parking for employees and guests in the north portion of the property. A total of 188 at-grade parking spaces are proposed for the project. The proposed two-story building would have a maximum height of 29 feet and step down from the existing three-story building towards West Medical Drive. The architectural style complements the existing building by incorporating gable and hip roofs and residential-scale windows. The building facade would include cement board siding, cultured stone with cement plaster and varied earth tones. The building is planned around two large courtyards, one active and one passive. Proposed landscaping would include several tree species, as well as a variety of shrubs, groundcovers and artificial turf. The landscaping would be drought tolerant and utilize drip irrigation. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: The applicant’s proposal requires approval of the following: Conditional Use Permit: Before the Planning Commission grants an amendment to a conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this code; 2) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses, or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; 3) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use, in a manner not detrimental to either the particular area or health and safety; 4) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and 5) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. The expansion of a senior and assisted living facility is permitted at this location subject to approval of a conditional use permit to determine compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposed expansion would be fully integrated into the existing facility and complies with the required setbacks and height limitations. Existing vehicular access points would be maintained and brought into compliance with current Codes, with respect to increasing the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A August 10, 2015 Page 3 of 5 driveway approach depth. The expansion includes new courtyards for use of the residents, as well as a variety of indoor amenities. The existing facility has not generated any Code Enforcement violations or concerns from the surrounding community. The existing use as a senior and assisted living facility is compatible with the surrounding land uses and the size and scale of the proposed addition is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Parking Variance: Parking variances may be granted upon a finding by the Planning Commission or City Council that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use; 2) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 3) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use; 4) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use; and 5) That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. The Zoning Code requires 226 spaces for the senior living facility, including the proposed expansion. A total of 188 on-site spaces are proposed. A parking study was prepared by Lindscott Law & Greenspan and staff agrees with the methodology and findings of the report. Parking counts of the existing facility were taken on three different days, including a typical weekday, a typical Sunday and Mother’s Day. The counts resulted in a peak ratio of 0.71 spaces per unit such that 179 spaces would be the maximum parking demand for the proposed project. The study demonstrates that adequate parking would be provided for the project such that the use will not increase demand for parking on public streets or neighboring properties. The project incorporates a recommendation from staff to remove the gates that currently separate guest parking from resident parking. Doing so will allow use of parking spaces in the northern half of the project site which are currently underutilized. Many of the residents do not keep a car on-site and the facility maintains multi-passenger vehicles to transport residents to and from off-site activity centers. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A August 10, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Administrative Adjustment: The Planning Director has review authority over Administrative Adjustments, but may refer any application to the Planning Commission for review. Since the Conditional Use Permit and Variance must be approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Director has referred the Administrative Adjustment to the Commission to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the project and to make a finding of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code; 2) The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require the adjustment; and 3) The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood. The Code allows an FAR of up to 0.5 in the C-G Zone and the project proposes an FAR of 0.52, which is a deviation of less than five percent. The proposed two-story expansion is smaller in size and scale than the three-story facility that exists today. It would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and complies with all other dimensional standards of the C-G Zone, including required landscape and building setbacks and allowable height. The General Plan designates this property for Institutional land uses, which allows a significantly higher FAR of 3.0 than the 0.5 FAR proposed as part of this project. The proposed 0.52 FAR provides a greater variety of common areas for residents, including wellness areas, activity rooms and living rooms, in addition to the residential units. These on-site amenities contribute to a quality living experience for residents of the community. The existing facility is an established component of the community and the overall size and massing of the proposed addition is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Environmental Analysis: A draft Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project. Through this analysis, including the preparation of an Initial Study, staff has determined that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project, nor would any mitigation measures be required. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 17, 2015. No comments have been received to date. Based upon a thorough review of the proposed project and the Negative Declaration, staff has determined that the project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and recommends that the Planning Commission approve and adopt the Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A August 10, 2015 Page 5 of 5 CONCLUSION: Staff supports the proposed expansion to the senior living facility because it would be compatible with the mix of residential and commercial land uses in the surrounding area. Parking is adequate to accommodate the expansion without impacting public streets or surrounding properties. The higher floor area ratio is appropriate since it is significantly lower than the FAR limitations permitted by the Institutional land use designation in the General Plan. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. Prepared by, Submitted by, Elaine Thienprasiddhi Ted White Associate Planner Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. CUP Justification 3. Parking Study 4. Administrative Adjustment Justification 5. Negative Declaration/Initial Study 6. Development Plans 7. Site Photographs T (MHP)ANAHEIM SHORESMOBILE ESTATES264 UNITS C-GEMERALD COURTSENIOR LIVING C-GAUTO DEALERSHIP C-GMEDICAL OFFICE C-GMEDICAL OFFICE C-GMEDICAL OFFICE C-GMEDICAL OFFICE C-GAUTO DEALERSHIP S N U G H A R B O R D R W C O R O N E T A V E W MEDICAL CENTER DR N E U C L I D S T W ROMNEYA DR 91 FREEWAY W. LA PALMA AVEN. E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . H A R B O R B L V D 1731 West Medical Center Drive DEV No. 2015-00003 Subject Property APN: 072-150-76072-150-72 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 S N U G H A R B O R D R W C O R O N E T A V E W MEDICAL CENTER DR N E U C L I D S T W ROMNEYA DR 91 FREEWAY W. LA PALMA AVEN. E U C L I D S T N . B R O O K H U R S T S T N . H A R B O R B L V D 1731 West Medical Center Drive DEV No. 2015-00003 Subject Property APN: 072-150-76072-150-72 °0 50 100 Feet Aerial Photo:May 2014 [DRAFT] ATTACHMENT NO. 1 -1- PC2015-*** RESOLUTION NO. PC2015-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONNECTION WITH APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2720, THE FIRST AMENDMENT THERETO, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH (DEV2015-00003) (1731 WEST MEDICAL CENTER DRIVE) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning Commission”) did receive a verified Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 3640A, Variance No. 2015-05000 and Administrative Adjustment No. 2014-00361 to construct a two-story, 58-unit expansion to an existing 194-unit senior apartment building with fewer parking spaces than required and a higher floor area ratio (FAR) than permitted by the Anaheim Municipal Code (herein referred to as the "Proposed Project") for certain real property located at 1731 West Medical Center Drive in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, on September 30, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 85-216 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2720 (herein referred to as the "Original CUP") to construct a 179-unit senior citizen’s retirement facility and a 99-bed skilled nursing facility with waiver of required lot frontage; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-322 modifying Conditional Use Permit No. 2720 to approve waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces for Parcel No. 1 and (b) required height and type of fence for Parcel Nos. 1 and 2 to complete construction of the facility (herein reffered to as the “First Amendment to the Original CUP”); and WHEREAS, on November 1, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 93-119 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 3640 (herein referred to as "CUP 3640") to permit a 16-unit (16-bed) expansion to an existing 179-unit (206-bed) senior citizen’s retirement facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces; and WHEREAS, the Original CUP, the First Amendment to the Original CUP, and CUP 3640 shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Existing CUP"); and WHEREAS, the Property is located in the "CG" General Commercial Zone and is subject to the zoning and development standards contained in Chapter 18.08 (Commercial Zones) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (“Code”). The Anaheim General Plan designates this Property for Institutional land uses; and -2- PC2015-*** WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; herein referred to as “CEQA”) and the State of California Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (commencing with Section 15000 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations; herein referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the "lead agency" for the preparation and consideration of environmental documents for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, following preliminary review, the City prepared an Initial Study to determine if the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment, which Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the City, that the Proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, a draft Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual to evaluate the physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. The Negative Declaration was circulated for a 20-day public/responsible agency review on July 17, 2015 and was also made available for review on the City's website at www.anaheim.net. A complete copy of the Negative Declaration is on file and can be viewed in the Planning Division of City Hall located on the First Floor at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California. Copies of said document are also available for purchase; and WHEREAS, the City gave notice of its intent to adopt the Negative Declaration to (a) the public pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, (b) those individuals and organizations, if any, that previously submitted written requests for notice pursuant to Section 15072(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, (c) responsible and trustee and other agencies with jurisdiction over resources that will be affected by the Proposed Project pursuant to Section 15073(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, and (d) the Clerk of the County of Orange pursuant to Section 15072(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City intends and desires to use the Negative Declaration as the environmental documentation required by CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual for the Proposed Project; and WHEREAS, based upon a thorough review of the Proposed Project and the Negative Declaration and the comments received to date and the responses prepared, staff finds that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the implementation of the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on August 10, 2015, at 5:00 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Code, to hear and consider evidence and testimony for and against the Proposed Project and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing with respect to the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 3640A, does find and determine the following: -3- PC2015-*** 1. The request to amend a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior and assisted living facility with fewer parking spaces than required and a higher floor area ratio (FAR) than permitted by the Code in the C-G Zone is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized under Section 18.08.030.0402 (Convalescent & Rest Homes) of the Code; and 2. The Proposed Project will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located because the Proposed Project is consistent and compatible with existing residential and commercial uses in the surrounding area. An existing perimeter wall would be maintained and a landscape setback exceeding Code requirements is proposed along the front of the property. Existing access points to the site are adequate to serve the use and would be maintained; and 3. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the Proposed Project in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or to the health and safety because the Proposed Project is designed to ensure its compatibility with surrounding land use. The setback depths required by the zone are existing and will be maintained with the proposed expansion; and 4. The traffic generated by the Proposed Project will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the traffic generated by this use will not exceed the anticipated volumes of traffic on the surrounding streets and adequate parking will be provided to accommodate the use; and 5. The granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as the proposed land use will be integrated with the surrounding commercial area and would not pose a health or safety risk to the citizens of the City of Anaheim or the adjoining City. WHEREAS, the parking study prepared by Lindscott Law & Greenspan justifies the parking variance and the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for a variance for less parking than required by the Code should be approved for the following reasons: SECTION NO. 18.42.040.010 Minimum number of parking spaces. (226 spaces required; 188 spaces proposed) 1. Based upon a review of the findings of parking study prepared by Lindscott Law & Greenspan and reviewed and approved by Traffic and Transportation Division staff, the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use because the maximum peak parking demand for the Proposed Project is 179 spaces and 188 spaces are proposed; and -4- PC2015-*** 2. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because adequate parking to meet the demand would be provided on-site. Direct traffic access to the site will continue to be available at the two existing driveway locations along Medical Center Drive. The drive aisles within the site are sufficient to accommodate the site’s existing and anticipated expansion traffic without undue traffic congestion. Additionally, the removal of the parking gates will create a continuous loop for trash and other service vehicles; and 3. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because adequate parking to meet the demand would be provided on-site. Curbsite parking spaces are available along the project frontage on Medical Center Drive, but the parking analysis has not relied on usage of any curbside parking. Further, the midweek parking counts were performed on street sweeping day in which no parking is allow on Medical Center Drive; and 4. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use because adequate parking to meet the demand would be provided on-site; and 5. That the variance, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use because the two existing access points to serve the property are adequate to serve the use. Traffic movements at each of the Project driveways have been established for many years and the expansion will not add significantly to those driveway movements. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does further find and determine that the request for an Administrative Adjustment should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The adjustment is consistent with the purposes and intent of the Zoning Code. The proposed addition would comply with all other dimensional standards of the C-G Zone, including required landscape and building setbacks and allowable height. The General Plan designates this property for Institutional land uses, which has a maximum FAR of 3, far greater than the project proposes; 2. The same or similar result cannot be achieved by using provisions in the Zoning Code that do not require the adjustment since the only alternative to processing the adjustment is to reduce the overall size of the addition, which would impact the size of the protected internal courtyard as well as the size and quality of common areas that are proposed to be provided for residents, including wellness areas, activity rooms and living rooms. These on-site amenities would contribute to a quality living experience for residents of the community; 3. The adjustment will not produce a result that is out of character or detrimental to the neighborhood. The existing facility is an established component of the community and the overall size and massing of the proposed addition is compatible with the character of the neighborhood. -5- PC2015-*** WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts, that detract from the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all evidence presented to it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: 1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Procedure Manual and serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for the Proposed Project; and 2. That the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration (including the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period) prior to acting upon the Proposed Project; and 3. Based upon the record before it (including the Initial Study and any comments received), the Planning Commission finds that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission and the City of Anaheim; and 4. The Negative Declaration are hereby approved and adopted; and 5. The Negative Declaration together with the Initial Study and other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based are on file in the Planning Division of the City of Anaheim located on the First Floor at 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, California; and 6. City staff is authorized and directed to file with the Clerk of the County of Orange a Notice of Determination following adoption of this Resolution in accordance with Section 15075(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, based upon the aforesaid findings and determinations, the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3640A, Variance No. 2015-05000 and Administrative Adjustment No. 2014-00361, contingent upon and subject to the conditions of approval, which are described in Exhibit B, and attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Said conditions are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the Property in order to preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Extensions for further time to complete conditions of approval may be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Code. Timing for compliance with conditions of approval may be amended by the Planning Director upon a showing of good cause provided (i) equivalent timing is established that satisfies the original intent and purpose of the condition(s), (ii) the modification complies with the Code, and (iii) the applicant has demonstrated significant progress toward establishment of the use or approved development. -6- PC2015-*** BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any amendment, modification or revocation of this permit may be processed in accordance with Chapters 18.60.190 (Amendment to Permit Approval) and 18.60.200 (City-Initiated Revocation or Modification of Permits) of the Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of August 10, 2015. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 (Procedures) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal. CHAIRMAN, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ATTEST: SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -7- PC2015-*** STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Morris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on August 10, 2015, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 10th day of August, 2015. SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -8- PC2015-*** -9- PC2014-*** EXHIBIT “B” CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3640A VARIANCE NO. 2015-05000 ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2015-00367 (DEV2015-00003) NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS 1 The applicant shall submit a Final Drainage Study prepared by a registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California. The Study shall be based upon and reference the latest edition of the Orange County Hydrology Manual the applicable City of Anaheim Master Plan of Drainage for the project area. All drainage sub-area boundaries per the Master Plan for Drainage shall be maintained. The Study shall include: an analysis of 10-, 25- and 100-year storm frequencies; an analysis of all drainage impacts to the existing storm drain system based upon the ultimate project build-out condition; and address whether off-site and/ or on-site drainage improvements (such as detention/ retention basins or surface runoff reduction) will be required to prevent downstream properties from becoming flooded. Public Works, Development Services Division 2 The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department/Development Services, for review and approval, a Water Quality Management Plan, as described in Drainage Area Management Plan for Orange County. Said WQMP shall: • Address Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or “zero discharge” areas, and conserving natural areas. • Incorporate applicable Routine Source Control BMPs. • Incorporate Treatment Control BMPs. • Describe the long-term operation and maintenance, identifies the responsible parties, and funding mechanisms for the Treatment Control BMPs. Public Works, Development Services Division PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 3 The applicant shall execute and record a Covenant and Agreement to Hold the Property as one parcel for Building Requirements in a form satisfactory to the Building Official and the City Attorney. The Covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Bulding Official and the City Attorney prior to its execution and recordation in the Official Records of the County of Orange. A copy of the recorded Covenant shall then be submitted to the Planning Department. Planning & Building, Building Division 4 Landscaping plans shall show plant materials adequate to screen existing equipment within the front setback. Any new equipment shall be located outside of setbacks and screened by plant materials if visible to the street. Planning & Building, Building Division 5 Building plans shall demonstrate that curbs adjacent to the drive aisles shall be painted red to prohibit parallel parking in the drive aisles. Red curb locations shall be clearly labeled on building plans. All existing conflicting signage shall be removed. Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division -10- PC2014-*** 6 Building plans shall demonstrate that fire lanes shall be posted with “No Parking Any Time.” Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. All existing conflicting signage shall be removed. Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING AND ZONING INSPECTIONS 7 All required WQMP items shall be installed, operational and inspected by the City. Public Works, Development Services Division 8 Prior to final building and zoning inspections, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from a licensed landscape architect certifying that all landscaping and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans. Planning & Building, Planning Services Division 9 Gates preventing access to parking spaces on the northern portion of the site shall be removed. Planning & Building, Planning Services Division GENERAL CONDITIONS 10 The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents (collectively referred to individually and collectively as “Indemnitees”) from any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought against Indemnitees to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the decision of the Indemnitees concerning this permit or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done, or made prior to the decision, or to determine the reasonableness, legality or validity of any condition attached thereto. The Applicant’s indemnification is intended to include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against or incurred by Indemnitees and costs of suit, claim or litigation, including without limitation attorneys’ fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in connection with such proceeding. Planning & Building, Planning Services Division 11 The applicant is responsible for paying all charges related to the processing of this discretionary case application within 30 days of the issuance of the final invoice or prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or may result in the revocation of the approval of this application. Planning & Building, Planning Services Division 12 The subject Property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department, and as conditioned herein. Planning & Building, Planning Services Division A T T A C H M E N T N O . 2 May 14, 2015 Mr. Marco Vakili Development Services Kisco Senior Living 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 LLG Reference: 2.14.3517.1 Subject: Parking Needs Study Update Emerald Court Expansion Anaheim, California Dear Mr. Vakili: As requested, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this updated Parking Needs Study for the planned expansion of the existing Emerald Court senior living community in the City of Anaheim. The Project site is currently developed with 194 senior living units, and the planned expansion would add 58 assisted living units, resulting in a community total of 252 units. This update reflects the most current site plan detailing and Project data as of March 20, 2015. Compared to a prior submittal in January of this year, the planned unit count remains unchanged, but parking and other refinements have been made in the plan in response to city staff comments and outreach, including email coordination earlier this week to verify that our field study of actual existing site parking demand fully captured all of that demand. Additionally, LLG has collected and evaluated additional parking demand data to address city staff concerns relative to the parking supply balance in gated versus ungated parking areas of the site, studied employee staffing data for insights on employee versus resident and visitor parking needs, and further developed an updated practice and methodology for delineating parking subareas for each of those groups throughout the overall site. Key to that update of the site’s parking allocation practice is the removal of the existing parking gates that restrict access to 114 spaces in the “rear lot”. With the gates removed, some employee parking will be shifted to newly-designated employee parking space ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 2 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc groupings (taking the place of currently unused/unassigned spaces) in that rear lot, making more visitor parking available in the “front lot”. The inputs, basis, field study results and related analyses of our updated and expanded study are discussed below. Briefly, LLG concludes that the realistic “design level” parking needs of the Project are described by an empirically-derived site- specific parking ratio of 0.71 spaces per unit, and accounts for both weekday and weekend day peak parking needs. This ratio equates to a need for 179 on-site parking spaces. The overall site plan proposes a parking supply totaling 188 spaces (an increase of five spaces over the prior plan submittal), and translates to a 9-space minimum parking surplus at peak times. A summary of our conclusions and findings begins on page 20 of this letter report. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND UNDERSTANDING Existing Facilities Emerald Court is an existing senior living facility located at 1731 West Medical Center Drive in the City of Anaheim. Emerald Court currently provides a total of 194 senior units to include a mix of 148 independent living and 46 assisted living units. Based on a mix of studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units, this 194 unit total translates to the equivalent of 220 bedrooms. The city’s code calculation for Convalescent and Rest Home communities is based on the bedroom (rather than dwelling unit) total. In that bedroom summation, a studio and/or alcove unit is counted as having one bedroom. The attached Table 1 summarizes the overall site development living unit count and parking space count for existing, added expansion Project, and total future conditions. The attached Figure 1 presents the Overall Site Parking and Circulation Plan as prepared by Shelter LLP. For parking and circulation review purposes, this figure goes beyond the immediate footprint of the Project expansion area alone, and illustrates the entirety of both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2. The existing Emerald Court development spans both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 85-229. Review of an ALTA site survey map indicates that all existing building structures are located on Parcel 1 (referred to in this study as the “northern parcel”). By our inventory, Parcel 1 also provides 118 marked parking spaces to include: Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 3 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc  114 surface spaces in a gated parking area adjoining the west, north and east sides of the existing site buildings. For convenience, this study refers to the surface parking spaces in this now-gated footprint as the “rear lot”, and all spaces south of the existing gates as the “front lot”. Data provided by on-site management indicates that: o 72 of these rear lot spaces are assigned for resident use (although our field study indicated that 27 of these resident spaces were not used), o 12 rear lot spaces are assigned to key staff of Emerald Court, o 6 rear lot spaces are assigned for Emerald Court shuttle vehicles or for special designation, o 6 rear lot spaces are assigned for visitors (we understand these are recurring visitors with a transmitter to open the gate, but without their own reserved space), o 1 accessible space for use by any parker with the proper handicap placard or license plate, o and 17 spaces are currently unassigned. As introduced above, many more spaces in the gated area have been assigned to residents than are currently being used. In conjunction with the expansion project and as discussed in subsequent sections of this report, Emerald Court will update its current practices for parking space assignments and remove the gates to ensure a better balance of parking supply and demand throughout the site.  Within Parcel 1, but outside the existing gates and part of the front lot, 4 accessible spaces are now provide east of the porte-cochere area and adjoining the southeast corner of the existing built community. Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 85-229 lies immediately south of Parcel 1 as described above, and now provides 47 surface parking spaces in support of existing Emerald Court site development on that adjoining northern parcel. Those 47 marked spaces include:  25 spaces in a single-loaded parking bay (meaning 90-degree parking spaces are positioned along only one side of the travel aisle) near the west property line. This aisle extends northward from the existing west site driveway on Medical Center Drive and services the west gated entry to the Parcel 1 parking area.  22 spaces in a single-loaded parking bay near the east property line. These spaces are accessed via a “jog” from the existing east site driveway on Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 4 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc Medical Center Drive to service the east gated entry to the Parcel 1 parking area. While not striped with pavement markings, parallel parking does occur along the east curb of the drive aisle (with that curb defining the west edge of the “Palm Island” as referred to in this report) that extends directly from the existing east site driveway on Medical Center Drive. That drive aisle leads directly to the porte-cochere area and the primary on-foot entry to the existing Emerald Court facilities. Two spaces are inferred by signage (and intended for future resident use) at the northern end of that curb. Because these “spaces” are not actually striped, the parking inventory of this report does count them among the existing supply. Taken together, the existing northern parcel and southern parcel provide a total of 165 spaces (114 in the “rear lot” and 51 in the “front lot”) in support of the combined parking needs of Emerald Court residents, visitors (including outside medical professionals that attend to residents), and staff. Based on the 194 living unit total, this provision equates to an overall provided parking supply ratio of 0.85 spaces per living unit. Parking History and Requirements for Existing Site Facilities The parking history, methodology and requirements for the existing Emerald Court facilities are rooted in prior project site processing to include Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 2720 as originally approved by the City of Anaheim Planning Commission on September 30, 1985, and subsequently modified by Resolution No. PC 88-322 on November 21, 1988. City staff has indicated that the current application for the Emerald Court expansion will be processed as a further modification to the prior CUP. The record for the 1988 modification, including staff report, parking study prepared by Justin F. Farmer Transportation Engineers (“Farmer report”) dated September 30, 1988, and Reciprocal Parking Agreement (involving the northern and southern parcels as discussed above, and recorded January 6, 1988) reflect the following details:  179 then-proposed living units to include 152 one-bedroom and 27 two- bedroom units.  For the purposes of a code parking calculation, these represented 206 bedrooms to which a code requirement applicable to Convalescent and Rest Homes of 0.8 spaces per bedroom was applied, resulting in a code requirement of 165 on-site spaces. Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 5 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc  The Farmer report referenced a then-proposed project site plan as providing 137 parking spaces distributed between Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 (the northern and southern parcels) as described above. It further cited research concluding that an empirically derived parking ratio of 0.40 spaces per bedroom (versus the 0.8 spaces per bedroom code requirement) would account for a “worst case” condition. On that basis, the Farmer report further concluded that while a total of 83 spaces (calculated as 0.40 x 206) represented the needed parking supply, the report endorsed the 137-space parking supply indicated on the site plan. On an equivalency basis, and using the 179 unit total at that time, the 83- space recommendation by the Farmer report translates to 0.46 spaces per unit, and the 137-space supply of the pending site plan at that time equated to a provision of 0.77 spaces per living unit.  Resolution No. PC 88-322 recognized an overall site code requirement of 165 spaces, but approved a requested waiver by the applicant to provide 116 parking spaces. The approval of the waiver allowing 116 spaces on the site translates to a city-approved supply ratio of 0.65 spaces per living unit. Key takeaways from the above history in light of the current site development provisions are as follows:  The 1988 approvals initially granted a waiver from the then-current and now- current code requirements for Convalescent and Rest Home communities.  An equivalent supply ratio of 0.65 spaces per living unit was inherent in the Planning Commission’s prior approval. Given the current 194 living unit count, roughly 126 spaces would have been needed based on that ratio to support the existing Emerald Court development.  While approved at an equivalent 0.65 spaces per living unit required parking ratio, Emerald Court now exists as a 194-unit facility and functions with a supply of 165 spaces for the combined Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 footprint. The actual existing supply ratio is 0.85 spaces per living unit (165/194).  The record is unclear on why the original Emerald Court development constructed parking at a greater ratio than the Planning Commission seemed to require. It is known that a second phase of development was discussed around the time the original approvals were in process, and one possible explanation is that the “extra” spaces were constructed in anticipation of an expansion that only now is moving forward. Regardless of the approved parking ratio inferred in the original site approvals, LLG’s approach in this study has been to isolate through field study the site’s actual parking needs, Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 6 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc convert those to a “design level” ratio to guide the overall site development, and to apply that ratio to the ultimate unit count with the expansion Project in place. EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Emerald Court expansion would add a total of 58 assisted living units within the Parcel 2 portion of the overall site. Those added units would be made up by 13 studio units, 12 alcove units, 28 one-bedroom units, and 5 two-bedroom units. The Project expansion would grow the community to a total of 252 units. This unit count translates to a total of 283 beds. This information is also presented in the attached Table 1. The Project also proposes to remove the gates at the entries to the rear lot, and supplement the existing Parcel 1 and 2 parking supply with the net addition of 23 parking spaces on the overall two-parcel site. Parking adjustments, deletions and additions throughout the overall site are summarized Table 1, and further illustrated in Figure 1. They are as follows:  The “rear lot” would become ungated, and Emerald Court would update its practices and procedures for use of parking in this overall 114-space footprint.  Construction details of the four existing accessible spaces (and their adjoining ramping) at the south edge of the north parcel do not meet current ADA standards. These spaces are east of the porte-cochere area and near the southeast corner of the existing building. They would be reconfigured to provide additional landscaping area and two compliant accessible spaces. In doing so, two existing accessible spaces would be lost. That two-space loss would be offset by the Project gain of four accessible spaces along the east edge of the access aisle extending from the west driveway of the site (as discussed below).  To meet the requirements for a 20-foot minimum driveway throat (per city Standard Detail No. 473) on the site’s western driveway, one existing space would be removed at the south end along the west side of that aisle. The west side of that aisle now provides 25 spaces between the driveway at West Medical Center Drive and the west gate to the rear lot. That count would be reduced to 24 spaces by this modification. Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 7 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc  Fifteen spaces would be added along the east edge of the access aisle extending from the existing west driveway of the site, creating a double- loaded parking bay. This 15-space addition would include 11 standard and four accessible spaces. The latter offsets the 2-space loss east of the porte- cochere area and near the southeast corner of the existing building (as described above).  The footprint of the existing circulation loop through the porte-cochere would be elongated to the south, and two parking spaces would be added to a tangent curb section within that elongated footprint.  The east edge of the Palm Island would be indented to create five parallel parking spaces while maintaining the minimum required width of the adjoining two-way circulation aisle.  The removal of the east parking control gate and its related equipment would create a footprint for four additional parking spaces at the northeast corner of the front lot. In combination, the Project adjustments described above would increase the existing 165-space overall site parking supply by 23 net spaces, resulting in an overall future site parking supply of 188 spaces. Additionally, the removal of both parking control gates creates the opportunity for much greater utility of spaces in the rear lot, and an improved balance of parking across the entire site. PARKING FIELD STUDY As summarized in the preceding section, the original approvals for Emerald Court included a Conditional Use Permit with parking waiver that recognized the site’s expected reduced parking demand characteristics, and thus peak parking demand ratios, when contrast with the code parking requirement applicable to “Convalescent and Rest Homes” of 0.8 spaces per bedroom. As noted above, city staff has advised that the current application for the expansion will be processed as a further modification to the existing CUP. While the prior waiver from city code ratio was substantiated by research presented in the Farmer report as compiled from other settings, Emerald Court is now a fully established community whose parking needs can be identified by focused field study of this actual site. LLG is familiar with the Emerald Court site, having made a three-day parking demand study of its parking characteristics in 2009. That work was done for Kisco Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 8 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc Senior Living to develop field study and parking design ratios for carryover to other Kisco projects in design and development. Those demand counts corresponded to a typical weekday, a typical Sunday, and a Mother’s Day Sunday. The latter was selected in view of its potential for increased site visitor parking activity on that type of day, versus a typical Sunday/weekend day, especially due to expanded event programming at Emerald Court for that particular Sunday. The parking demand observations on each of these survey days consisted of recurring “survey rounds” throughout all parking areas of the site, and recording the observed demands on an hourly basis from 8 AM through 8 PM. From the data, the noon or 2 PM hour was observed to demonstrate the greatest parking demand. In view of the midday period being representative of peak parking demand levels at the site, and acknowledging the passage of time since those prior field studies, LLG repeated those parking demand observations for the 11 AM through 2 PM period on a recent October Wednesday and Sunday. The selection of a Wednesday for all weekday field study of actual parking demand at the site was strategic in all of these site data collection efforts dating back to 2009. Medical Center Drive permits parking at both curbs in the project area, except between noon and 4 PM on Wednesdays when parking is prohibited at both the north and south curbs. If there was a potential for site parkers to use Medical Center Drive in lieu of on-site parking, a Wednesday survey round would reasonably capture the condition when that on-street parking was not available (noting further that curb parking on other area streets is much too far from the site to be viable parking alternative), and illustrate the most conservative condition for capturing total site parking demand. Stated another way, any potential weekday on-street parking demand by Emerald Court was captured in the on-site parking demand counts by doing those weekday counts on a street sweeping (“no parking”) survey day. City staff review of our prior (December 23. 2014) study prompted questions on the degree of parking utilization in the ungated front lot versus the gated rear lot, and a possible imbalance of supply accessibility caused by the gates. That prompted LLG to conduct additional field survey of actual parking demands at Emerald Court on Wednesday, February 18 and Sunday, February 22 of this year. The overall methodology was similar to the prior data collection and included hourly observations beginning at 8 AM and extending through 11 PM. In the front lot, demands were summed by subarea. All except eight spaces in the 114-space rear lot have either a numbered or lettered reference marked on the pavement at the foot of each space, and space assignments to residents, key staff or for other purposes are tied to this numbering/lettering system. Given this setting, the parking demand counts in the rear lot were tracked by individual parking space, and post processing of the data allowed Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 9 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc us to distinguish resident versus employee versus other parking types for further insight on the parking balance concern. Table 2 summarizes the results from the 2009, October 2014, and February 2015 data sets. These are “un-weighted” demand values before considering the unit occupancy levels footnoted at the bottom of the table. That “weighting” process is carried out in a subsequent section of this report as part of the development of “design” parking ratios for the site. That process isolated the Sunday, May 10, 2009 (Mother’s Day) data as having the greatest overall parking demand ratio per occupied unit, and Wednesday, February 18, 2015 data as representative of the peak weekday demand per unit, but still incrementally less than the ratio for the Mother’s Day Sunday. Table 2 values presented in bold face isolate the observed hour of peak overall site parking demand for each observation date, and further present in parentheses the split of actual total demand between the front lot/the rear lot. The split of front versus rear lot values for other hours of the day are similar, and have been omitted from the table for simplicity. The Mother’s Day demand had the single greatest overall weekend parking demand hour, totaling 109 spaces at noon, but corresponding to only a 66% utilization of the site’s 165-space parking supply. The “typical” Sunday data (May 17, 2009, October 26, 2014, and February 22, 2015) results were somewhat less, but similar for the grouping of “non-holiday” Sundays, with peak demands of 95 spaces (2 PM), 90 spaces (noon), and 90 spaces (1 PM), respectively, constituting a 58% parking utilization or less. Also from Table 2, while roughly 5 years apart in their data collection, the 2009 and 2014 Wednesday parking demands peaked at 104 spaces at noon on the indicated survey dates, and the 2015 data peaked at 1 PM with 112 spaces (but corresponded to greater unit occupancy levels at the site). On a relative basis, weekdays seem to exhibit greater demand than a typical Sunday, but not quite as much as a “special programming” Sunday like Mother’s Day. It has been noted that site occupancy varied slightly between the 2009, 2014 and 2015 data sets. In using these data in the analysis section of this letter report, the actual demand results are extrapolated to a full occupancy condition, and a 10% contingency is added to the empirical field study ratio to derive a “design” parking ratio for the existing site, and for its expanded configuration. Looking to the Table 2 parenthetical details of front lot versus gated rear lot parking demand splits, the range of demand in the gated rear lot ranges from 34 spaces (2009 Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 10 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc typical Sunday) to 57 spaces (2014 weekday). Front lot demand ranges from 51 spaces (2015 Sunday) to 64 spaces (2009 weekday). Parking assignment practices and resident versus key staff utilization in the rear lot could have varied throughout the span of roughly six years of data collection, and for that reason, the 2014 and 2015 data are concluded to be most relevant to a projection of overall parking splits among these user groups at the site. As introduced previously, the 2015 field study tracked parking accumulation in the gated rear lot on a space-by-space basis for each survey round. That data collection identified a peak accumulation in the 1 PM hour of 56 parkers. Because any use of these spaces is intended by assignment to be a specific parker, the analysis continued with a parallel identification of all spaces, by number or letter, that were used at some hour during the Wednesday field study, but not necessarily in the peak hour. The logic for this approach was that weekday versus weekend demand levels are greatest for all but the Mother’s Day Sunday, “employee” staffing levels will be greatest on a weekday, and there is some offset in time among the use of individual spaces that is important to a future allocation practice for the site, but is not necessarily reflected in 56-space peak accumulation. The spreadsheet array of this information is available separately, and key aspects were presented above in the Existing Facilities section. Building on that, the usage data indicate the following:  Of the 114-space gated supply, only 69 spaces were ever in use during at least one survey round of the day. Forty-five spaces were never in use.  Space assignments to resident’s total 72 spaces, but only 45 of these were ever in use. Figure 2 locates each of these assigned resident spaces, and further differentiates between those that were in use during the recent field study day, and those spaces that were not used on that day. We understand that on-site staff is in the process of updating its assignment practices. Previously, we understood that spaces have been assigned to residents (at no additional rent charge) because of that resident’s desire for a space, even if they don’t have a vehicle on site. In practice, some of these assigned resident spaces appear to function as visitor space for an individual unit that is functionally removed from available supply even though it may be rarely, if ever, used. This characteristic unreasonably constricts functional supply, and we understand that Emerald Court will transition to a new format where, with very limited exceptions, a space will only be assigned to a resident if they routinely have a personal vehicle with them on site. Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 11 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc  Twelve spaces are assigned to key associates, but only eight were ever in use during the survey day. This could be because of work schedules of those “missing” staff parkers.  Thirteen “other” designated spaces, to include one handicap space, were all in use at some point during the study day. This includes five spaces for Emerald Court vehicles, one for a designated recurring visitor, and six other visitor spaces. By designation of the latter, it appears that there are a limited number of recurring visitors with a gate access transmitter, but without an individually-reserved space.  Figure 3 locates each of the 12 spaces assigned to key Emerald Court staff and 13 “other” designated spaces, and further differentiates between those spaces that were in use during the recent field study day, and those spaces that were not used on that day.  The remaining 17 spaces are, at present, unassigned, but we observed three of them to be in use at some point during the study day. The above assignment versus utilization patterns in a gated area of the site create potential issues for achieving a parking balance throughout the site. This condition gave rise to elimination of the gates as part of the expansion Project description, and opening up some of those spaces for other parkers, as will be described in the recommended future practice for parking allocations at the expanded Emerald Court. STAFFING LEVELS AND PARKING NEEDS AT EMERALD COURT Existing staffing levels can be an important influencer of the amount and locational split of parking demand at Emerald Court, particularly since only a limited number of key staff are now permitted to park in the rear lot. That being the case, the front lot provides most of the site’s employee parking support, and that lot provides essentially all guest parking support as well. As part of this study process, LLG worked extensively with the on-site team at Emerald Court in the review and compilation of actual employee shift schedules and time-of-day profiles. Those data were compiled to coincide with the Wednesday, February 18, 2015 detailed field study described above. Table 2 indicated that this study date had the greatest peak parking demand accumulation of all the study dates, noting further that its 112-space peak demand value is prior to weighting for unit occupancy. It also had representative ungated versus gated demand splits when Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 12 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc compared to other study dates, and the ungated versus gated peak demands were equal at 56 spaces each. From data provided by Emerald Court, staffing at the site consists of two basic categories. Those are made up of actual employees (“associates”) of Emerald Court across a variety of functions to include the front desk, housekeeping, maintenance, wellness, assisted living, kitchen, dining room, and administration. In addition to associates, private caregivers may be contracted through designated providers (eligible providers are identified by the on-site team) for recurring care of specific residents. The two basic staffing groups, in combination, generally translate to total “employee” parking needs at the site as distinct from resident or visitor parking needs. The “employee” data provided by Emerald Court has been evaluated and summarized to a time-of-day spreadsheet of accumulated “employees” through each hour of the day. That matrix is presented as Appendix A of this study. Key information coming out of that appendix, or inherent in its compilation, is as follows:  The existing associate headcount at Emerald Court, among all shifts and schedules, totals approximately 60 employees (rounded up from 59).  On a relative basis, actual starting and ending times for Emerald Court associates are somewhat spread throughout the day, and we conclude that they are not so concentrated as to create a parking “hit” of shift overlap more typical to a “medical/hospital” setting.  Mid-morning staffing peaks with just under 40 staff associates, but it takes arrivals continuously from 6 AM until about 8:30 to get those 40 in place.  Peak associate staffing occurs continuously from about 11 AM through about 2 PM, and totals 45 employees. That suggests existing peak parking needs for associates alone are on the order of 40 to less than 45 spaces, since our site visits suggest some ridesharing occurs. Also, 12 key associates now have a reserved space behind the gates.  Associate staffing levels begin to diminish after 2 PM, and fall to 33 at 4 PM, 23 at 5 PM, about 20 at 6 PM, and less than 10 during the evening hours.  Taken separately, Private Caregivers totaled a headcount of 25 on the representative data day, but their schedules and shift times are very diverse. From the profile created with the available data, their peak on-site accumulation totals 12 staffers, and accumulates by 8:30 AM. Beyond that Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 13 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc time, their number reduces to about 9 staffers until 6:30 PM, after which 7 or less is typical, throughout the nighttime hours.  The combined existing staffing peak for both Emerald Court associates and Private Caregivers totals 54, and coincides roughly with the noon through 2 PM period. That’s close to the simple summation of each staffing group peak, but not quite. Looking to Table 2 demand levels, the 2015 Wednesday survey data tied to the above staffing profile indicated 112 peak parkers on the site with 56 of those behind the gates. The space-by-space field study demand detailing indicated that up to eight of those parkers were key associates. Adding those eight gated parkers to the ungated peak of 56 spaces suggests a site-wide peak for only “employees” and visitors of approximately 64 vehicles. Comparison to the peak “employee” headcount of 54 (as described above), and even after accounting for some ridesharing among associates, suggests that the greatest majority of non-resident peak weekday parking need is made up by employees, with daytime visitor parking needs being much less. It should be noted that due to some time-of-day offsets, the above values are not necessarily truly additive, but are nearly so for the purposes of illustration. Looking to the future, Emerald Court expects to add up to 20 daytime shift associates at completion and occupancy of the expansion Project. Adding this headcount of 20 to the above staffing levels suggests a peak daytime staffing at the site of 74 employees. All of this information was taken into consideration in the development of a future parking allocation concept as discussed later in this report. PARKING NEEDS “DESIGN” RATIOS Table 3 presents the derivation of “design” parking ratios for the Emerald Court site. Column (1) identifies the survey day/date and Column (2) identifies the overall characteristic of that day (holiday, typical weekday, or typical Sunday). Column (3) identifies the peak observed parking demand. Using that peak demand and the unit occupancy levels of Column (4), Column (5) calculates the empirical peak parking demand ratio in terms of spaces per living unit for each data set. Adding a 10% contingency factor, Column (6) presents the “design” ratio for each characteristic, and identifies the governing parking ratio for each day type in a shaded block. Those LLG field studies at Emerald Court yielded compelling data for use in evaluating the proposed Project addition to the existing site setting, as follows: Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 14 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc  Peak weekday empirical demand (derived from Wednesday, February 18, 2015 data at 1 PM) of 0.63 spaces per unit. This value is based on 178 occupied units (of the 194 unit total). Applying a factor of safety of 10% led to a design parking ratio of 0.69 spaces per unit. This is a “blended” ratio for all unit types now on the property and is concluded to be applicable to the total unit count with the expansion in place.  A Sunday peak demand factor (derived from May 17, 2009 noon data) of 0.56 spaces per unit (also “blended”). Adding a 10% contingency translates to a “typical” Sunday (“blended”) design rate of 0.62 spaces per unit.  A Mother’s Day Sunday empirical peak demand of 0.64 spaces per unit, translating to a design rate of 0.71 spaces per unit (“blended”). It is worth noting that this May 10, 2009 noon peak coincided with a Mother’s Day brunch sponsored by Emerald Court. With the Mother’s Day characteristic translating to the greatest design value, provision of future site parking at the 0.71 spaces per living unit ratio would assure a parking balance on a day with similar characteristic, and result in an expected parking surplus for the weekday as well as typical Sunday characteristic. Stepping back from the above derivation, LLG has also reviewed parking data available from Parking Generation (3rd Edition) as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for land use types most similar to the existing and future resident types at Emerald Court. Those use types and key characteristics are as follows:  Land Use 252: Senior Adult Housing-Attached o Described as senior adult housing consisting of attached independent living developments, including retirement communities, age-restricted housing and active adult communities. o As defined by ITE, these sites may include limited social or recreational services, but generally lack centralized dining. o The database is limited to two study sites, one providing 46 units, and the other providing 91 units. o While parking supply among these sites ranged from 1.2 to 1.4 spaces per unit, peak parking demands among the two sites topped out at 0.50 spaces per unit.  Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facility Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 15 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc o Described as independent living developments that provide centralized amenities such as dining, housekeeping, transportation, and organized social/recreational activities. o Limited medical services (such as nursing and dental) may or may not be provided. o The resident may contract additional medical services or personal assistance. o The database is limited with only one study site that provided 204 dwelling units. o That study site had a peak parking demand ratio of 0.41 spaces per dwelling unit.  Land Use 254: Assisted Living o Described as living complexes that provide either routine protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited people. o Commonly have separate living quarters for residents and services include dining, housekeeping, social and physical activities, medication administration, and transportation. o Assisted care commonly bridges the gap between independent living and nursing homes. o Staff may be available at an assisted care facility 24 hours per day, but skilled medical care, which is limited in nature, is not required. o Among 13 sites averaging 100 dwelling units, the observed peak demand on a weekday equaled 0.33 spaces per unit within a range of 0.22 to 0.42. o Weekend data indicate a slightly greater peak demand on a Sunday versus a Saturday. The average peak among 8 sites (averaging 88 units per site) was 0.28 spaces per unit in a range of 0.21 to 0.34.  Land Use 255: Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) o Combine aspects of independent living with increased care, as lifestyle needs change with time. o Housing options may include various combinations of senior adult (detached), senior adult (attached), congregate care, assisted living, and skilled nursing care. o The communities may contain special services such as medical, dining, recreational, and some limited supporting retail facilities. o CCRC facilities are usually self-contained villages. o Three study site are represented in the data base. Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 16 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc o One site (with 178 units) peaked at a demand ratio of 0.49 spaces per unit. o The second site (with 247 units) peaked at a demand ratio of 0.83 spaces per unit. o The third site (42 units) peaked at a demand ratio of 1.0 spaces per unit. Review of the ITE data suggest a limited database for each land use type. Their description of Land Use 253: Congregate Care Facility best aligns with the existing independent living component of the site. ITE’s Land Use 254: Assisted Living best correlates to the existing and expanded Assisted Living units at Emerald Court. LLG has derived a blended “design” ratio of 0.71 spaces per unit to guide the overall site needs. That compares very favorably to the ITE peak ratios for Land Uses 253 and 254 (before adding a contingency to convert to a “design” ratio) of 0.41 and 0.42 spaces per unit, respectively. The descriptions for Land Use 252: Senior Adult Housing-Attached and Land Use 255: Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) have been added to this discussion to illustrate the range of community types within the ITE data base. The former is concluded to be not applicable to Emerald Court due to lack of formalized dining and the type of resident type inferred in that community type. While CCRC facilities may appear similar to Emerald Court, their inclusion of skilled nursing care and detached senior adult units are not consistent with Emerald Court. PARKING ANALYSIS Using the site-specific parking ratios derived above, Table 4 summarizes the overall parking requirements for a fully occupied existing Emerald Court, the additive needs of the proposed expansion, and the resultant site-wide needs following full occupancy of the expanded facility. As shown, direct application of the peak Sunday “design” ratio of 0.71 spaces per unit results in a total future parking requirement of 179 parking spaces. With a planned on-site future supply of 188 spaces, a parking surplus of 9 spaces is indicated. The table further indicates that typical weekday and typical weekend day minimum parking surpluses are forecast at 14 spaces, and 32 spaces, respectively. It is recognized that in the abstract, City of Anaheim code requirements applicable to Convalescent and Rest Homes equal 0.8 spaces per bedroom. However, Conditional Use Permit 2720 as modified by the City of Anaheim Planning Commission (Resolution No. PC 88-322 on November 21, 1988) established a parking waiver for Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 17 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc the site and allowed a total of 116 spaces on the site to support the then-proposed 179 living units on the site. This 116-space provision for that 179 unit plan translates to a city-approved supply ratio of 0.65 spaces per living unit. LLG’s recommended “design” ratio of 0.71 spaces per unit exceeds the equivalent waiver ratio of 0.65 spaces per unit previously approved by the Planning Commission. On that basis, LLG concludes that 179-space supply recommendation (252 total future units x 0.71 spaces per unit) stemming from this empirically-derived “design” ratio is consistent with and slightly more conservative (by about 9%) than the parking supply required by the Planning Commission for the original Emerald Court project. The planned supply of 188 spaces translates to an actual supply ratio slightly in excess of 0.74 spaces per unit, adding conservancy beyond the parking ratio (0.65 spaces per unit) represented in the 1988 Planning Commission approvals. RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR FUTURE PARKING ALLOCATIONS The removal of the gates at the entrances to the rear lot, and making a significant portion of those rear lot spaces (beyond the needs of resident and other assigned spaces) available for other parkers, will contribute to a much better balance of subarea parking supply and demand for the existing condition, and the for the expanded future condition. The detailed inventories, demand studies and related analyses presented in preceding sections of this study provide the basis to strategically reframe the existing allocation of assigned spaces on the site, and to further designate parking subareas of the site for unassigned/unreserved “employee” and/or visitor spaces. The attached Figure 5 presents our recommendation for future parking allocations throughout the overall site. In making these allocations, it is best not to “overdo” a rigorous split among too many potential parking user groups, otherwise we might risk the allocation issues inherent to the current gates. Removing the existing gates is a fundamental building block of this plan. So LLG has framed four allocation types to include: 1. ADA spaces, where any parker with a handicap placard or license plate could park. There will be seven handicap spaces on the site. 2. “Reserved” spaces, with the intent that all spaces in this footprint are subject to assignment by space number or letter. There are 72 spaces shown throughout this allocation area, and those spaces represent a consolidation of documented (by field study) demand of real assigned parking needs. Those include residents concluded to have an actual vehicle on-site (45 spaces), a 20% Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 18 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc contingency (10 spaces) for growth of that resident demand, Emerald Court vehicles (five spaces), and key staff associates as well as other functional assignments (12 spaces). These parenthetical values sum to 72 spaces. 3. “Staff” spaces are intended for Emerald Court associates only, but based on a protocol to be determined by Emerald Court, full-shift Private Caregivers could also be authorized or directed to park in these staff spaces. “Staff” subareas in Figure 5 are distributed strategically along the perimeter of the overall site, and have been introduced within the former gated footprint to relieve perceived parking shortfalls in the front lots. They total 63 unassigned/unreserved spaces, and provide a relative balance with LLG’s working number of 65 future peak shift “employee” headcount at Emerald Court. Ridesharing and/or key staff spaces in the “Reserved” areas will create a functional contingency within these 65 “Staff” (unreserved/unassigned) spaces. It will also allow for the absorption of some Private Caregivers full- shift staff. 4. “Visitor” spaces. This allocation totals 46 spaces, and includes 11 of the new spaces on the east side of the west aisle, the six existing visitor spaces in the now-gated rear lot, two spaces in the porte cochere (these should probably be signed as short term), and a field of 27 spaces in the eastern portion of the front lot. In reality, less-than-full-shift Private Caregiver staff should be allowed to park in the “Visitor” spaces, and by directive, we recommend that the on-site management team direct them to the 11 new non-ADA spaces on the west aisle. As an example of the relative proportion of Private Caregiver staff having a relatively short parking duration on site, 7 of the 25 Private Caregiver staff identified in our research with on-site management work an on-site shift of three hours or less, so regardless of their staffing function, they really have a visitor-like length of stay. The resulting allocations have been iterated to this recommendation with the intent to minimize disruptions to current parking assignments in the rear lot. The “Reserved” footprint results from carrying over as many individual existing assigned spaces as possible to that adjusted footprint. It also keeps the carport spaces as part of that assignment footprint. Some parking assignments will need to be relocated from their current space location assignment because that specific space is being absorbed to newly-designated Staff spaces. Summing from Figure 4, that totals 10 spaces that are now assigned to residents and observed to be in use during the field study, but that will need to be moved to a new “Reserved” location. Based on this framing, any existing assignments in the future “Reserved” footprint could remain unchanged (that individual parker would not need to be moved to a different space). The strategy Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 19 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc permits most resident, key associate, Emerald Court vehicle, and other functional assignments to all remain where they are now. All of the space number/letter markings on the pavement in the gated area should remain in place even though the allocation concept indicates that 35 of these spaces will be designated for “Staff” use, and won’t be assigned. Keeping the existing markings in place permits flexibility for future relocations, expansions or contractions of the overall “Reserved” footprint without re-doing the marking system. ADA spaces are obvious and have their own signage and markings. The communication of “Reserved” versus “Staff” versus “Visitor” spaces could be done by group signage and/or pavement markings to identify a group of spaces of that type, rather than signing each individual space. Note from the plan that it used “runs” of spaces between planters or other physical features as building blocks of supply in each group. This can make the designations more understandable to the user, and provide the basis for follow up with violating parkers, including a low level of enforcement. We recommend deploying elements of this new strategy shortly after project approvals, rather than waiting until completion and occupancy of the Assisted Living Project expansion. That would allow for all parkers to understand the changes before site disruptions (due to construction activity et al) get underway. It might also allow for gradually and gently adjusting existing space assignments as the need for those individual assignments might change. As part of this rollout, the gates would not need to be removed immediately; they could merely be left open. We understand that Emerald Court is updating its current practice for space assignments to individual resident units. As part of that update, we recommend spaces be assigned only to those residents who routinely keep their own vehicle on site. Assigning spaces for guests of residents should not be done except under the most strenuous (and controlled) circumstances. LLG’s field study identified 27 spaces assigned to specific residents units in which a parked vehicle was never observed. So even with the gates left open for access by any parker, these 27 spaces are essentially removed from the functional supply unless the current practice is overhauled. Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 20 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS Conclusions Code parking ratio requirements applicable to Convalescent and Rest Homes equal 0.8 spaces per bedroom. However, Conditional Use Permit 2720 (Resolution No. PC 88-322 on November 21, 1988) established a parking waiver for the site and allowed a total of 116 spaces on the site, equivalent to a city-approved supply ratio of 0.65 spaces per living unit. City staff have advised that the Emerald Court Expansion application will be processed with a modification of the existing Conditions Use Permit. Field study of the existing Emerald Court has determined a peak “design” level parking need at the site of 0.71 spaces per dwelling unit. That ratio results from a Mother’s Day Sunday as having the greatest demand level (0.64 spaces per occupied unit), with the further application of a 10% contingency factor. These results are determined to be consistent with the original Planning Commission action, although slightly more conservative. As such, LLG recommends a minimum supply of 179 spaces at the expanded facility. Project site plans indicate a future supply of 188 spaces, suggesting a minimum surplus of 9 spaces beyond the LLG recommendation. Additionally, field study by LLG identified existing parking demand versus supply issues on the site due to on-going unused assigned spaces in the gated rear lot. Those gates will be removed as part of the expansion Project, and Figure 5 presents a concept for reallocating spaces among four user types to assure an improved parking balance with Project implementation. While consistent with and slightly more conservative than the parking requirements stemming from the waiver approved in the site’s 1988 Conditional Use Permit modification, modification of the existing Conditional Use Permit in conjunction with the current application will require the justification of a Parking Variance for the Project. Findings in support of that Variance are discussed in the next subsection. Findings Notwithstanding the detailing of the prior Conditional Use Permit approvals at the site, a Variance from the parking code will be needed for this expansion Project because the provided parking supply will not be consistent with the 0.8 spaces per bedroom ratio required by the City of Anaheim parking code. This parking demand analysis demonstrates that the forecast parking demand for the expanded Emerald Court Project will peak at 179 spaces. The proposed parking supply of 188 parking Mr. Marco Vakili May 14, 2015 Page 21 of 22 N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc spaces will be adequate for the intended uses, with a projected surplus at peak demand times of 9 spaces. As a result, all five findings referenced in Section 18.42.110 Parking Variances, as outlined below, are satisfied: Finding 18.42.110.0101: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not cause fewer off-street parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of operation of such use. The site will accommodate the forecasted peak parking demands as derived in this study. The calculated minimum surplus at peak times is forecast at 9 spaces. Site parking will become more usable with the removal of the existing parking gates and implementation of the recommended parking space allocation concept. Finding 18.42.110.0104: That the variance, under the conditions imposed, if any, will not increase traffic congestion within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for the proposed use. The off-street parking area will provide sufficient parking to accommodate the forecast parking demand. Direct traffic access to the site will continue to be available at two right-turn-in/right-turn-out driveway locations along Medical Center Drive. The drive aisles within this site are sufficient to accommodate the site’s existing and anticipated expansion traffic without undue traffic congestion. Additionally, the removal of the parking gates will create a continuous on-site “loop” for trash and other service vehicles. Finding 18.42.110.0102: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use. Peak parking demands for the total future site development are concluded to balance with the Project’s on-site parking supply. Curbside parking spaces are available along the project frontage on Medical Center Drive, but the parking analysis has not relied on Project site usage of any of those curbside spaces. Finding 18.42.110.0103: That the variance, under the conditions imposed if any, will not increase the demand and competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use (which property is not N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc TABLE 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY Description Now Existing Proposed Project Increment1+5 Total Living Units  Independent o One Bedroom 126 -- 126 o Two Bedrooms 22 -- 22 Subtotal: Units (“Bedrooms”) 1482 (170) -- 148 (170)  Assisted o Studios 16 13 29 o Alcove -- 12 12 o One Bedroom 26 28 54 o Two Bedrooms 4 5 9 Subtotal: Units (“Bedrooms”) 462 (50) +58 (63) 104 (113) Total: Units (“Bedrooms”) 1942 (220) +58 (63) 252 (283) Parking Supply3+4  “Rear Lot” (Parcel 1) o Gated 114 -1145 -- o Ungated 4 +112 net5 116 Subtotal 118 -25 116  “Front Lot” (Parcel 2) o Ungated 47 +23 net5 70  Porte Cochere (Parcel 1 & 2) -- +25 2 Total 165 +23 net5 188 1 Source: Emerald Court Expansion Site Plan, Shelter LLP, March 12, 2015, Rev. March 20, 2015. 2 Source: Kisco Senior Living. 3 ALTA Survey and field inventory by LLG. 4 Source: Emerald Court Expansion Overall Site Parking and Circulation Plan, Shelter LLP, March 12, 2015, Rev. March 20, 2015. 5 See text for a description of parking adjustments, deletions, and additions. N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc TABLE 2 PARKING SURVEY RESULTS – EXISTING EMERALD COURT Time Began Weekday Weekend Wednesday May 13, 20096 Wednesday October 29, 20147 Wednesday February 18, 20158 Sunday May 10, 20096 Sunday May 17, 20096 Sunday October 26, 20147 Sunday February 22, 20158 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization9 Occupied Spaces Percent Utilization 9 8:00 AM 85 52% NA10 NA 90 55% 80 48% 78 47% NA NA 72 44% 9:00 AM 93 56% NA NA 90 55% 82 50% 74 45% NA NA 74 45% 10:00 AM 95 58% NA NA 101 61% 84 51% 83 50% NA NA 77 47% 11:00 AM 102 62% 102 62% 105 64% 95 58% 84 51% 88 53% 81 49% 12:00 PM 10411 (64/40)12 63% 104 (57/57) 63% 106 64% 109 (58/51) 66% 83 50% 90 (52/48) 55% 89 54% 1:00 PM 101 61% 95 58% 112 (56/56) 68% 104 63% 89 54% 83 50% 90 (51/39) 55% 2:00 PM 91 55% 92 56% 109 66% 98 59% 95 (61/34) 58% 87 53% 87 53% 3:00 PM 88 53% NA NA 106 64% 87 53% 90 55% NA NA 82 50% 4:00 PM 92 56% NA NA 87 53% 80 48% 85 52% NA NA 77 47% 5:00 PM 93 56% NA NA 76 46% 77 47% 89 54% NA NA 75 45% 6:00 PM 85 52% NA NA 74 45% 76 46% 87 53% NA NA 73 44% 7:00 PM 81 49% NA NA 74 45% 71 43% 77 47% NA NA 72 44% 8:00 PM 74 45% NA NA 71 43% 70 42% 75 45% NA NA 70 42% 9:00 PM NA NA NA NA 61 37% NA NA NA NA NA NA 68 41% 10:00 PM NA NA NA NA 60 36% NA NA NA NA NA NA 63 38% 11:00 PM NA NA NA NA 60 36% NA NA NA NA NA NA 60 36% 6 Source: Parking counts conducted by Transportation Studies, Inc. Site occupancy equaled 169 living units. 7 Source: National Data & Surveying Services. Site occupancy equaled 175 living units. 8 Source: National Data & Surveying Services. Site occupancy equaled 178 living units. 9 Based on an inventory of 165 existing marked spaces. 10 NA = not applicable. Data not collected. 11 Bold face indicates maximum observed parking demand on indicated date. 12 XX/YY parenthetical value indicates the split of actual peak subarea demand for the indicated survey day and date, where XX values correspond to total vehicles parked in the existing gated supply, and YY values correspond to total vehicles parked in other site parking subareas outside the gates. N:\3500\2143517 - Emerald Court, Anaheim\Report\3517 Emerald Court Parking, Anaheim 5-14-15.doc TABLE 3 OBSERVED PEAK PARKING RATIOS FOR EXISTING EMERALD COURT (1) Survey Day (2) Characteristic (3) Occupied Spaces (4) Occupied Units (5) Actual Peak Parking Demand Ratio13 (6) Design Parking Ratio 14 Weekday Wednesday May 13, 2009 Typical Weekday 104 169 0.62 spaces/unit 0.68 spaces/unit Wednesday October 29, 2014 Typical Weekday 104 175 0.59 spaces/unit 0.56 spaces/unit Wednesday February 18, 2015 Typical Weekday 112 178 0.63 spaces/unit 0.69 spaces/unit Weekend Sunday May 10, 200915 Peak Sunday/Holiday 109 169 0.64 spaces/unit 0.71 spaces/unit16 Sunday May 17, 2009 Typical Sunday/Weekend Day 95 169 0.56 spaces/unit 0.62 spaces/unit Sunday October 26, 2014 Typical Sunday/Weekend Day 90 175 0.51 spaces/unit 0.57 spaces/unit Sunday February 22, 2015 Typical Sunday/Weekend Day 90 178 0.51 spaces/unit 0.56 spaces/unit 13 Parking ratio (column 5) = number of occupied spaces (column 3) divided by the number of occupied units (column 4). 14 Represents actual peak plus a contingency of 10%. 15 Coincides with Mother’s Day. 16 Bold face indicates governing parking ratio for design day condition to be applied to the total unit count. TABLE 4 “DESIGN” PARKING NEEDS FOR THE EMERALD COURT SITE (1) Type of Day (2) Design Parking Rate17 Peak Parking Needs Comparison With Proposed Parking Supply (6 – 5) (3) Existing (194 units) (4) Added Project (58 units) (5) Future Total (252 units) (6) Parking Spaces (7) Surplus/ Deficiency (+/-) Peak Sunday/Holiday 0.71 spaces/unit 138 41 179 188 +9 Typical Weekday 0.69 spaces/unit 134 40 174 188 +14 Typical Sunday/Weekend Day 0.62 spaces/unit 120 36 156 188 +32 17 Based on peak demand values (as determined through field study) plus a contingency of 10%. See text and Table 3. Front Desk Housekeeping Total 6:00 AM 1 0 0 0 6 2 4 0 13 9 22 6:30 AM 1 0 0 0 6 2 4 0 13 10 23 7:00 AM 1 6 0 0 6 3 4 1 21 12 33 7:30 AM 2 6 0 1 6 3 4 2 24 11 35 8:00 AM 2 6 5 3 7 4 4 4 35 11 46 8:30 AM 3 6 5 4 7 4 4 4 37 12 49 9:00 AM 3 6 5 4 7 4 4 4 37 11 48 9:30 AM 3 6 5 4 7 5 4 4 38 9 47 10:00 AM 3 6 5 4 7 5 4 4 38 10 48 10:30 AM 3 6 5 4 7 5 6 4 40 9 49 11:00 AM 3 6 5 4 7 5 10 4 44 9 53 11:30 AM 3 6 5 4 7 5 10 4 44 9 53 12:00 PM 3 7 5 4 7 5 10 4 45 9 54 12:30 PM 3 7 5 4 7 5 10 4 45 9 54 1:00 PM 3 7 5 4 7 5 10 4 45 8 53 1:30 PM 3 7 5 4 7 5 10 4 45 8 53 2:00 PM 3 7 5 4 5 7 10 4 45 8 53 2:30 PM 4 7 5 4 5 5 6 4 40 8 48 3:00 PM 4 7 5 4 5 5 6 4 40 9 49 3:30 PM 4 1 5 4 5 4 9 4 36 9 45 4:00 PM 2 1 5 3 5 4 9 4 33 9 42 4:30 PM 2 1 1 1 5 4 9 3 26 9 35 5:00 PM 2 2 1 1 4 3 9 1 23 9 32 5:30 PM 1 2 1 0 4 3 9 0 20 9 29 6:00 PM 1 2 0 0 4 3 9 0 19 9 28 6:30 PM 1 2 0 0 4 2 9 0 18 9 27 7:00 PM 1 2 0 0 4 2 9 0 18 6 24 7:30 PM 1 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 9 6 15 8:00 PM 1 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 5 12 8:30 PM 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 5 11 9:00 PM 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 5 11 9:30 PM 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 5 11 10:00 PM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 9 10:30 PM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 9 11:00 PM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 11:30 PM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 12:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 12:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 1:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 1:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 2:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 2:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 3:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 3:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 4:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 4:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 10 5:00 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 8 11 5:30 AM 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 9 12 Note: = Peak Time Period APPENDIX A TIME-OF-DAY STAFF POPULATION BASED ON EMERALD COURT WORK SCHEDULES: WEEKDAY Time Associates + Caregivers Total Private Caregivers Emerald Court Associates Maintenance Wellness Assisted Living Kitchen Dining Room Admin A T T A C H M E N T N O . 4 CITY OF ANAHEIM NEGATIVE DECLARATION City of Anaheim, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION: Emerald Court Expansion (Development Case No. 2015-00003, Conditional Use Permit No. 3640A, Variance No. 2015-05000, Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00367) PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed Project is located at 1731 West Medical Center Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. STAFF CONTACT: Elaine Thienprasiddhi PHONE: (714) 765-4568 NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER: Kisco Senior Living Anaheim II LP PHONE: (760) 804-5900 ADDRESS: 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA ZIP CODE: 92008 AGENT’S NAME (if applicable): PHONE: ZIP CODE: AGENT’S ADDRESS: The Initial Study, as attached and made part of this Negative Declaration, indicates that the above project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse impact on the environment. ___ The mitigation measures identified in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. ___ have been included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects. XX No mitigation measures have been identified for this project. Therefore, the above project is recommended for exemption from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. Authorized Signature – Planning Department 7/14/15 Date ATTACHMENT NO. 5 - 1- A CITY OF ANAHEIM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Form Revision Date: 7/6/2015 CASE NOS.: Development Project No. 2015-00003, Conditional Use Permit No. 3640A, Variance No. 2015- 05000, Administrative Adjustment No. 2015-00367 SITE ADDRESS: 1731 W. Medical Center Drive PROJECT NAME: Emerald Court Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.   Aesthetic/Visual  Agricultural & Forestry  Air Quality  Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Hydrology/Water Quality  Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources  Noise  Paleontological Resources  Population/Housing  Public Services  Recreation  Transportation/Traffic  Tribal Cultural Resources  Utilities/Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:  I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.  I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.  I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.  I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 7/16/15 _______ Signature of City of Anaheim Representative Date Elaine Thienprasiddhi ____ (714) 765-4568__ Printed Name/Title Phone No. - 2- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 2) A list of “Supporting Information Sources” must be attached and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the Narrative Summary for each section. 3) Response Column Heading Definitions: a) Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. b) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact”. The mitigation measures must be described, along with a brief explanation of how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. c) Less Than Significant Impact applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only Less Than Significant impacts. d) No Impact applies where a project does not create an impact in that category. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one proposed (e.g., the project falls outside of a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 4) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to a tiering, program EIR, Master EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15062(c)(3)(D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated”, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 5) Incorporate into the checklist any references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., the General Plan, zoning ordinance). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 6) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. - 3- Project Setting: The 6.9-acre Project site is developed with a 178,260 square foot, three-story, 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility. The property is located at 1731 West Medical Center Drive, west of Euclid Street, immediately south of the SR-91 freeway. This site is located adjacent to the eastbound SR-91 exit ramp to Euclid Street to the north, medical office buildings to the south, a mobile home community to the west, and an automobile dealership to the east. The site is accessible from Medical Center Drive, just west of Euclid Street. There is a 2.5-acre parcel on the adjacent lot immediately to the south of the existing building, which is where the majority of the expansion would occur. This parcel is dominated by a 1.4-acre undeveloped turf area, and the balance of the property is primarily asphalt drive aisle and hardscaping. The site currently has a General Plan land use designation of Public-Institutional. Zoning for the Project site is Commercial – General (C-G). Figure 1, Project Location, shows the existing site and its surroundings. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit, variance and administrative adjustment to construct a two-story, 58-unit expansion to an existing 194-unit senior apartment building with fewer parking spaces than required and a higher floor area ratio than permitted by the Code. The building would connect to the existing building to the north, and will share its central kitchen, trash and service areas. Common areas include a dining room, wellness center, bistro, living room, activity room, puzzle room, family room, beauty salon and administrative offices. All parking will be provided at grade. The existing handicapped parking stalls and the path of travel to the entrance of the existing building will be upgraded to comply with new codes. The existing fire lane access road, main entry drive, and service drive will all remain in place. Existing gates separating resident and guest parking will be removed to allow circulation to flow around the perimeter of the site and open up parking for employees and guests in the north portion of the property. The expansion would result in an increase of 63 new residents and 10 new employees per shift, with three shifts in a 24 hour period. Potential actions to be considered as part of the proposed project include, but are not limited to: • Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is requesting approval of a 58-unit expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment building. • Variance. The applicant is requesting consideration of a variance to provide fewer parking spaces than required by the Zoning Code. The Code requires 215 spaces and 188 spaces are proposed. • Administrative Adjustment. The applicant is requesting consideration of an administrative adjustment to provide a higher floor area ratio than allowed by the Zoning Code. The Code allows 0.50 and 0.52 is proposed. - 4- Figure 1. Project Location - 5- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway or local scenic expressway, scenic highway, or eligible scenic highway?     c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     Narrative Summary (a – d): No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The project site is flat and located in an area adjacent to residential and commercial uses. The project site is not located in a scenic vista and does not contain any eligible scenic resources. The proposed expansion of the existing building ensures that any future uses would be compatible visually with surrounding residential and commercial uses. Outdoor lighting would be consistent with lighting of the existing and similar buildings in the area. No impacts would occur. II. AGRICULTURE & FOREST RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?     b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?     d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     - 6- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary (a – e): No Impact. The project site is identified as “urban and built-up land” on the most recent Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map for Orange county. The 2.5-acre parcel on the adjacent lot immediately to the south of the existing building, including 1.4-acres of undeveloped turf area, was previously used for agriculture as recently as 1987. However, the land has been zoned Commercial since 1979, and has not been in agricultural use for over 25 years. Surrounding areas do not contain agricultural uses or related operations. Therefore, the project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses. No agricultural zoning is present in the surrounding area and no nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. As such, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. There are two key indicators of consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP): 1. Whether the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. 2. A project would conflict with the AQMP if it will exceed the assumptions in the 2012 AQMP or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase. The AQMP strategy is, in part, based on projections from local general plans. According to the SCAQMD, the proposed Project would be consistent with the AQMP if the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. If the Project emissions exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for NOx, VOC, PM10 or PM2.5, it allows that the emissions could contribute to a cumulative exceedance of a pollutant for which the Air Basin is in nonattainment (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, PM10 and PM2.5). An exceedance of a nonattainment pollutant would not be consistent with the goals of the AQMP. As shown in Table 1, below, the proposed Project would not exceed the regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable regional air quality violation impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the CAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in non-attainment. The Project would be subject to the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD. The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Orange County and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG prepares the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. The RTP is utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and air quality consistency analysis included in the AQMP. A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2012 AQMP incorporates the RTP’s socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. The Project would result in an increase of 30 full time jobs, and therefore is not expected to exceed AQMP projections. The increase in population due to development of the Project (63 residents of 58 new dwelling units) would not affect AQMP projections in population growth as the Project is consistent with the growth anticipated under the City of Anaheim’s General Plan. Because the Project would not conflict with existing population or employment projections, the Project is consistent with the population forecasts for the sub-region as adopted by SCAG. Because the Project is consistent with the SCAQMD’s projections incorporated into the AQMP, it can be concluded that the Project would be consistent with the projections in the AQMP. Based on the above discussion, implementation of the Project would result in no impact related to implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impacts would occur. (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?     - 7- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The Project site is located within SoCAB which is characterized by relatively poor air quality and is a Federal- and State-designated nonattainment area for O3, PM10 and PM2.5 (US EPA 2012). SCAQMD has established significance thresholds for both construction and operational activities relative to these criteria pollutants. Based on the following analysis, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts relative to the daily significance thresholds for criteria air pollutant construction emissions established by the SCAQMD. Construction Impacts - The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. General construction activities, such as site preparation, grading, and travel by construction workers can contribute to air pollutants. All construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 (SCAQMD 2005) regarding the control of fugitive dust emissions, and existing City dust suppression practices that minimize dust and other emissions. Such controls include frequent watering of the site, the covering and/or wetting of trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials off-site, street sweeping, as needed, to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or mud that would otherwise be carried off by trucks departing the site, suspending grading and excavation activities in high winds (25 miles per hour [mph] or more) as well as implementation of a traffic control plan to minimize traffic flow interference from construction activities, etc., that would be incorporated into the construction plans. Construction of the Project is conservatively anticipated to last 12 months and construction would be broken into three phases: site preparation, grading, and building construction (which consists of building construction, paving, and architectural coating). Pollutant emissions resulting from Project construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod model (Appendix A). Construction emissions are based on conservative assumptions, which imply a default equipment mix and a worst-case construction schedule. As shown in Table 1, entitled “Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions,” the incremental increase in emissions from Project construction activities fall well below SCAQMD significance thresholds for regional emissions. Regional emissions refer to the ambient conditions surrounding the site. Details of this analysis are available in Appendix A. Construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant. Operational Impacts - The Project’s incremental increase in regional emissions resulting from operation of the Project would not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Mobile source emission calculations utilize the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rate calculated by CalEEMod, based on the specific proposed land use and intensity. The daily VMT rate is based on the number of daily trips for each land use and applied to a commute percentage and an average trip length, both of which are land use specific values derived from CalEEMod. These values account for variations in trip frequency and length associated with commuting to and from the Project. Emission factors specific to the buildout year are projected based on SoCAB-specific fleet turnover rates and the impact of future emission standards and fuel efficiency standards. The increase in the consumption of fossil fuels to provide power, heat, and ventilation was considered in the calculations as stationary point source emissions. Future fuel consumption rates are estimated based on land use specific energy consumption rates. The emission factors used in this analysis represent a State-wide average of known power producing facilities, utilizing various technologies and emission control strategies, and do not take into account any unique emissions profile. At this time, these emission factors are considered conservative and representative. Area source emissions were calculated by CalEEMod and include emissions from natural gas and landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings (future maintenance). As shown in Table 1, the operational emissions pollutant concentrations resulting from Project operation would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts from project operation would be less than significant. Table 1 Project-Related Construction and Operational Emissions Mass Daily Thresholds (pounds per day) VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Project Emissions 4 19 15 23 1.8 1.4 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Operational Emissions SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Project Emissions 2 1.5 9 16 1.1 0.3 Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Source of emissions: CalEEMod 2013.2.2 Source of thresholds: SCAQMD Regional emissions refer to the ambient conditions surrounding the site. Therefore, pollutant emissions associated with construction of the Project would be less than significant. Operational related impacts are typically associated with emissions produced from Project-generated vehicle trips. The Project consists of the construction of 58 assisted living units and, once completed, the Project is forecast to generate less than 100 daily vehicle trips. Based on the Project’s anticipated compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and the scale of development, it is anticipated that impacts to existing air quality standards would be less than significant. - 8- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Any project which contributes a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non-attainment would result in a cumulatively significant impact. The regional emissions calculated for the Project are less than the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, which are designed to assist the SoCAB in attaining the applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards. These standards apply to both primary (criteria and precursor) and secondary pollutants (O3). Although the Project site is located in a region that is in non-attainment for O3, PM10 and PM2.5, the emissions associated with the Project would not be cumulatively considerable as the emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project will not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact of any criteria pollutant and impacts would be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located near a residential area. Therefore, there are sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity of the project site. SCAQMD’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to exceed the most stringent applicable Federal and State standards. The incremental increase in emissions from construction activities associated with the Project would be below SCAQMD LSTs. In addition, construction of the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for dust suppression, which would limit emissions of particulate matter. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project is not expected to cause or contribute to a significant increase in the concentration of criteria pollutants. Impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. No objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people are expected as a result of either grading or construction of the project. Although construction equipment and vehicles associated with the development of the site may produce exhaust emissions, any potential resulting odor would be intermittent, temporary and less than significant in nature. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?     e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     - 9- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?     Narrative Summary (a – f): No Impact. There are no candidate, sensitive or special status species on the site. The project site does not contain and is not adjacent to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. There are no wetlands on or near the project site. The site is entirely surrounded by existing residential and commercial development and offers no opportunities to contribute to a habitat linkage of any kind. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The project does not conflict with ordinances protecting biological resources and no impact would occur in this regard. Lastly, the project site is not located in the Orange County Central and Coastal Natural Community Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan area. No impact to biological resources would occur. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and/or identified on the Qualified Historic Structures list of the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan (April 15, 2010)?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?     c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     Narrative Summary (a – c): No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 178,260 square foot senior apartment and assisted living facility. Construction activities would occur on the 2.5-acre parcel on the adjacent lot immediately to the south of the existing building, including 1.4-acres of undeveloped turf area that was previously used for agriculture as recently as 1987. The site is located in an urbanized setting with surrounding residential and commercial uses. There are no known historical or archaeological resources at the project site or vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to historical or archaeological resources are anticipated. Though the expansion site is previously undisturbed, it is surrounded by developed uses and no human remains are anticipated to be found on the site. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall halt and remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner, and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. The proposed project would comply with existing law; therefore, no impacts would occur. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     - 10- Environmental Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Narrative Summary (a i and ii): Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known active earthquake faults or Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that traverse the City. However, the entire Southern California region is considered to be seismically active. The City is located between two major active fault zones; the Newport-Inglewood fault zone to the southwest and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zone to the northeast (California Department of Mines and Geology 2014). The Newport-Inglewood fault passes within seven miles of the western limits of the City and it is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 on the Richter scale. The Whittier-Elsinore fault passes within one mile of the northeastern end of the City and is capable of generating an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.8 on the Richter scale. The residential structures proposed for the Project site would be constructed to the standards prescribed by the California Building Code (CBC), as amended by the City, which would reduce risks associated with seismic activity. Implementation of required building codes and requirements would reduce impacts to less than significant. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?     Narrative Summary (a iii and iv): No Impact. The project site is flat and fully surrounded by development; therefore, the project is not subject to liquefaction or landslide potential as identified by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Los Alamitos Quadrangle March 25, 1999). Development of the site would comply with the State of California’s Special Publication 117A, which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. No impacts would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Because the proposed project would involve grading activities for site work that would occur on flat ground, there would be negligible soil erosion and/or loss of topsoil. However, all grading activity would need to comply with the City of Anaheim’s existing ordinances and policies, including those aimed at erosion control. Upon completion of the Project, the site would be completely developed, which would reduce the potential for erosion. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not subject to liquefaction potential as identified by the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map (Los Alamitos Quadrangle March 25, 1999). A geotechnical report will be required to address soil conditions, including the potential for unstable soils, liquefaction, lateral spreading or collapse, prior to the issuance of building permits, In addition, development would comply with the State of California’s Special Publication 117A, which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2010), creating substantial risks to life or property?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated in response c) above, a geotechnical report will be required to address soil conditions on the site prior to the issuance of building permits. In addition, the site would be developed in compliance with the State of California’s Special Publication 17A, which provides guidelines for developing in seismically sensitive areas. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project would tie into the existing sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would not be constructed on this site. No impacts would occur. - 11- VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs), analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. Common GHSs include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2Ox), fluorinated gases, and ozone. GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (Cal EPA 2006). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat trapping effect of GHGs, earth’s surface would be about 34 degrees cooler. However, it is believed that emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond naturally occurring concentrations. Temporary Construction Emissions The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to calculate emissions associated with Project construction. Based on modeling results shown in Table 2 (see also Appendix A), the proposed Project would generate an estimated maximum of 359 metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CDE)1 per year during construction. Operational Emissions CalEEMod was used to calculate GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed Project (see Appendix A). As shown in Table 2, the proposed Project would generate an estimated maximum of 463 metric tons of CDE per year of operation. Table 2 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions The City of Anaheim has not adopted any GHG emissions thresholds that apply to land use projects and has not adopted a GHG emissions reduction plan. Therefore, the proposed Project is evaluated based on the SCAQMD’s recommended/preferred threshold for residential projects of 3,000 metric tons CO2E per year (SCAQMD, September 2010). Although the Project would generate additional GHG emissions beyond existing conditions, because the total amount of GHG emissions would be lower than the threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year, impacts from GHG emissions would be less than significant. Emission Source CO2e (Metric Tons) Construction 359 Annual Operations 463 Total 822 Less than 3,000* tons CO2e? Yes *3,000 tons CO2e is the threshold established by SCAQMD’s Proposed Tier 3 Screening Levels. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     1 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CDE or CO2E) is a quantity that describes, for a given mixture and amount of GHG, the amount of CO2 *usually in metric tons) that would have the same global warming potential (GWP) when measured over a specified time scale (generally 100 years) - 12- Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. GHG emission reduction strategies that were prepared by the California EPA (CalEPA) Climate Action Team (CAT) and measures suggested by the Attorney General have been used as a benchmark for significance and qualitative consideration. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of Executive Order S-3-05 (http://www.climatechange.ca.gov). The Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report was prepared in 2008 by the California Attorney General’s Office. This report specifies measures that may reduce global warming related impacts at the individual project level. As appropriate, the measures can be included as design features of a project, required changes to the project, or imposed as mitigation. Some of the CAT strategies and measures suggested by the Attorney General’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report are listed below. Several of these actions are already ready required by California regulations. California Air Resources Board • Vehicle Climate Change Standards (AB 143) • Diesel anti-idling • Use of alternative fuels (ethanol) • Heavy-duty vehicle emission reduction measures • Achieving 50% of the statewide recycling goal (AB 939) • Zero waste – high recycling Department of Water Resources • Water use efficiency Energy Commission • Building energy efficiency standards in place and in progress • Appliance energy efficiency standards in place and in progress Consistent with these standards and measures, onsite development would reduce wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy and utilize alternative fuels by complying with requirements of the California Building Standards Code – California Energy Code. In addition, the City of Anaheim meets all of the recommendations of AB 939, which reduces waste flows to landfills. The proposed Project would be consistent with CAT and Attorney General strategies. GHG emissions generated by the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Therefore, the contribution of onsite development to cumulative global climate change impacts would be less than significant. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. During grading and construction activities, the contractor would be required to comply with Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits the active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or construction debris into the storm drain. Additionally, the owner/contractor is required to comply with the current version of the State’s General Construction Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. This Plan addresses the prevention or elimination of potential pollutants associated with all applicable types of construction related materials and wastes onsite. During the operational phase of the project, treatment control BMPs (currently identified as infiltration onsite) would be implemented to remove pollutants generated to the maximum extent practicable as defined in the County’s Drainage Area Management Plan. Conformance with the three aforementioned requirements would reduce any anticipated impacts to a less than significant level. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The type and amount of hazardous materials to be used on site would be typical of those used for an assisted living facility, such as propane and fuel for the emergency generator. All potentially hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and handled In compliance with applicable standards and regulations. Any associated risk would be adequately reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with these standards and regulations. As such, construction and operation of the project would result in a less than significant impact with regard to routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials relative to the safety of the public or the environment. - 13- c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Although there is a school within one-quarter mile of this site (North Orange County Community College District), the proposed Project is residential in nature and no substantial effects are anticipated from the proposed Project. As previously discussed, both construction and operation of the proposed Project would not generate acutely hazardous materials or wastes, and the limited use of any hazardous materials would be contained, stored, and used in accordance with manufacturer’s guidelines as well as according to all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts associated with emitting or handling hazardous emissions or materials within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school would be less than significant. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not listed on the Envirostor database (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/), which is maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within the Los Alamitos Joint Forces Training Base or Fullerton Municipal Airport influence areas. Therefore, the project would not result in undue exposure to airport related hazards. In addition, due to the project site’s distance from the airport and the infrequency of flight activity over the site, no impacts would occur. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within the immediate vicinity of any private airstrip, heliport or helistop. No impacts would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project site is located within an established commercial and residential area with established emergency and evacuation routes. No impacts would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project is not located within a designated high risk wildland fire area. The site is located within an established commercial and residential area that is built out with urbanized uses. No wildland areas exist in the immediate vicinity of the site. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur. - 14- IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?     b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?     d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?     e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?     f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?     - 15- Narrative Summary (a – f): Less Than Significant Impact. Water Quality The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. Grading and construction associated with site work on the project site would result in temporary disturbance of surface soils, which could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation on site, which are major visible water quality impacts attributable to construction activities. Any stockpiles of excavated areas would be susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain and, if not manage properly, could result in increased sedimentation in local drainage ways. The proposed Project must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) MS4 Permit. The NPDES MS4 Permit Program, which is administered in the project area by the City of Anaheim and County of Orange, issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), helps control water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into receiving waters. Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. The contractor would be required to comply with Chapter 10.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code, which prohibits the active or passive discharge or disposal of soil or construction debris into the storm drain. Additionally, the Project would be required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to ground such as stockpiling or excavation. The Construction General Permit requires implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP would generally contain a site map showing the construction perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, storm water collection and discharge points, general pre- and post-construction topography, drainage patterns across the site, and adjacent roadways. The SWPPP must also include project construction features designed to protect against stormwater runoff, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs). Additionally, the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants, should the BMPs fail; and a sediment monitoring plan, should the site discharge directly into a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Section A of the Construction General Permit describes the elements that must be contained in the SWPPP. Incorporation of these policies and ordinances and the requirements contained within would reduce project impacts to less than significant. Groundwater Supplies, Streams and Rivers The City of Anaheim receives water from two main sources: the Orange County Groundwater Basin, which is managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD), and imported water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Groundwater is pumped from 18 active wells located within the City, and imported water is delivered to the City through seven treated water connections and one untreated connection. According to the City of Anaheim 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), local groundwater has been the least expensive and most reliable source of water supply for the City. The City depends heavily on the groundwater from the Orange County Groundwater Basin each year. The proposed Project includes the development of 58 assisted living units. Due to the small size of the project, the supply of local water needed to support these units is not substantial. Therefore, the production rates of local wells would not be significantly impacted. Although the proposed Project would result in an increased amount of impervious surfaces on the site, development would not result in a significant deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table. Less than significant impacts to groundwater supplies would occur. On-Site Drainage On-site drainage improvements proposed in conjunction with the proposed site work would be required to meet the City’s and Orange County Flood Control District’s flood control criteria including design discharges, design/construction standards and maintenance features. All new development projects in the City are also required to include specific design BMPs to ensure that no stormwater runoff generated on site would be allowed to leave the site without pre-treatment for urban pollutants. The internal drainage patterns of the site would be slightly altered by Project development as the site is developed with 58 assisted living units. However, the Project would not alter any drainage pattern in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. The Project would not involve an alteration of the course of a stream or river. Erosion and siltation impacts potentially resulting from the project would, for the most part, occur during the Project’s site preparation and earthmoving phase. Implementation of the NPDES permit requirements, as they apply to the site, would reduce potential erosion, siltation, and water quality impacts. Less than significant impacts would occur. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?     h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?     i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?     j) Inundation by seiche or mudflow?     - 16- Narrative Summary (g – j): No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the construction of any housing or buildings that would be located within a flood zone or impede or redirect flood flows. In addition, the project site is flat and not located near any large bodies of water. Due to its location and topographical characteristics, the Project site would not be susceptible to flood, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Seiche would typically affect a location near a larger body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. The Project site is located over ten miles from the Pacific Ocean, which would reduce the potential for tsunami. Based on the flat topography of the Project site and surrounding area, as well as the lack of adjacent hillsides, the potential for mudflow on the Project site would also be reduced. Therefore, no impacts associated with flood, seiche, tsunami or mudflow would occur. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     Narrative Summary (a – b): No Impact. The proposed project would be in compliance with the General Plan and zoning. The project site would be compatible with surrounding uses and would not divide an existing neighborhood. No impacts would occur. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is not located within an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impacts would occur. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?     Narrative Summary (a – b): No Impact. According to the California Geological Survey, and as illustrated in the Green Element of the City’s General Plan, there are no significant mineral resources that exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. No impacts would occur. XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Noise can be disturbing or annoying because of its pitch or loudness. Sensitivity to noise increases during the evening and at night because excessive noise interferes with the ability to sleep. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized built out area within Anaheim. The area surrounding the site is mostly commercial and residential in nature. Operation The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The main source of noise would be vehicle noise from traffic trips of the employees, residents and visitors. The projected number of traffic trips would be a small percentage of the daily traffic on the surrounding roadways and would not constitute a significant increase in noise. Less than significant impacts would occur. Construction The proposed project would generate temporary noise during construction activities. Equipment used during construction could create noise impacts through the duration of the construction process. However, these impacts are temporary and would cease upon completion of construction. Chapter 6.70 of the City’s noise ordinance exempts construction noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays. Adherence to the City Noise ordinance would reduce construction noise to less than significant. - 17- b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. When the site is developed, the construction phase and associated construction equipment could produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as demolition, grading and building construction activities; however, construction activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Any construction that occurs would utilize typical construction techniques and pile driving would not be used during construction activities. As such, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction would not cause excessive groundborne noise or vibration. Impacts would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. Long-term ambient noise levels would be similar to those which exist in the surrounding residential and commercial neighborhood and, therefore, would not expose people to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. No impacts would occur. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. Any construction activities that occur would result in a temporary periodic increase in ambient noise levels; however, the City exempts noise generated by construction activities between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Compliance with the Anaheim Municipal Code requirement would reduce any Project impacts to less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan (Los Alamitos Armed Forces Reserve Center or Fullerton Municipal Airport), would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, heliport or helistop, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     Narrative Summary (e – f): No Impact. The proposed Project is not located in an airport land use plan area. No impacts from aircraft noise would occur. XIII. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 178,260 square foot senior apartment and assisted living facility. Construction activities would occur on the 2.5-acre parcel on the adjacent lot immediately to the south of the existing building, including 1.4-acres of undeveloped turf area, that was previously used for agriculture as recently as 1987. The site is located in an urbanized setting with surrounding residential and commercial uses. The project site is flat and urbanized and no unique paleontological or unique geologic resources/features exist. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; therefore, no impacts would occur. XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. Based on the City of Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element, the City has a build out population projection of 404,263 persons based on an average household size of 3.3 persons. The proposed project would include the construction of 58 new assisted living units on the project site and generate approximately 63 new residents. The increase of 63 residents in the area is less than one percent of the City’s projected build-out population and is not considered a substantial population growth. The expansion would result in about 30 new full time equivalent employees, which would be divided to cover three shifts in a 24 hour period. The proposed project will be accommodated within the existing infrastructure and would not construct roads or other infrastructure that may indirectly induce population growth. Less than significant impacts would occur. - 18- b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is currently a large 2.5-acre parcel, including 1.4-acres of turf, and does not include any existing housing. The proposed project would not displace existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Rather, the proposed project involves the construction of new housing in support of the City’s housing needs. As such, no replacement housing would be necessary. No impacts to population or housing would occur as a result of the proposed project. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection?     Police protection?     Schools?     Parks?     Other public facilities?     Narrative Summary: Fire - Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of 58 additional assisted living units would result in an increase of 63 new residents, which could incrementally increase demands for fire protection services. However, the increased demand for fire protection services would be considered minimal and would be met with existing fire resources. Impacts to fire services are anticipated to be adequately funded by an increase in tax revenue, over an extended period of time, relative to the increase in development intensity. Additional fire personnel and associated facilities and equipment would be provided through the annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program review process. Annually, fire department needs would be assessed and budget allocations revised accordingly to ensure that adequate levels of service are maintained throughout the City. Building plans submitted for new development on the project site would be required comply with fire safety requirements. Additionally, development of the project site would not result in the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. Impacts to fire services would be less than significant. Police - Less Than Significant Impact. The construction of 58 additional assisted living units would result in an increase of 63 new residents, which could incrementally increase demands for police services. Building plans submitted for new development on the project site would be required to comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) conditions imposed during the plan check review process and pay the appropriate impact fees in effect at the time building permits are issued. Therefore, development of the project site would not result in the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. Impacts to police services would be less than significant. Schools – No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. No school aged children are anticipated to be residents. As such, no additional students would be generated as a result of the proposed project and no impacts to schools would occur. - 19- Parks – No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The proposed project would generate approximately 63 new residents that may utilize recreational facilities in the City. According to the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330, the City has a goal of providing at least two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In order to help achieve this goal, AMC Section 17.34.010 requires residential developments to pay the appropriate development fees prior to the issuance of building permits in order to offset the increase in demand and use of recreational facilities. However, assisted living facilities are considered commercial, and are not subject to residential development fees for recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Other Public Facilities – No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The proposed project would generate approximately 63 new residents that may utilize library facilities in the City. The City of Anaheim Public Library system consists of a Central Library, five branches, the Heritage House (former Carnegie Library), and a Bookmobile. The population increase of less than one half of a percent of the total City population would not significantly impact the Public Library system. As a result, impacts associated with library services and facilities would be less than significant. XVI. RECREATION -- Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The proposed project would generate approximately 63 new residents that may utilize recreational facilities in the City. According to the Anaheim General Plan/Zoning Code Update EIR No. 330, the City has a goal of providing at least two acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. In order to help achieve this goal, AMC Section 17.34.010 requires residential developments to pay the appropriate development fees prior to the issuance of building permits in order to offset the increase in demand and use of recreational facilities. However, assisted living facilities are considered commercial, and are not subject to residential development fees for recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur. XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The majority of Project residents would not drive and the facility operates three vehicles for resident transport, including a 20 passenger bus and two seven-passenger vehicles. During construction, there would be a temporary minor increase in traffic due to construction vehicles during the construction phase. However, this impact would be temporary. The City of Anaheim Traffic Study Guidelines state that a traffic study is required when a project’s trips generation is expected to exceed 100 vehicle trips in the AM or PM peak hour. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed the 100 trips threshold and therefore a traffic study was not required. Neither the roadway nor immediately surrounding intersections are impacted and the additional trips due to implementation of the proposed project. No significant impacts would occur. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?     - 20- Narrative Summary: No Impact. Per Appendix B-1 of the Congestion Management Plan (CMP), Meeting CMP Traffic Impact Analysis Requirements, a CMP traffic analysis is required for CMP segments where the proposed project would generate 2,400 or more daily trips. For developments that will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA is 1,600 or more trips per day. The proposed project does not directly access the CMP Highway System link, and therefore the threshold for trip generation would be 2,400 or more daily trips. Since the total trip generation of the proposed project is less than 100 daily trips, the proposed project would generate less traffic than the CMP volume threshold. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact to the CMP network. No impacts would occur. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The proposed project would be located approximately 2.4 miles south east of the Fullerton Municipal Airport and 12.8 miles north of John Wayne Airport (SNA). The project site is not located within the airport planning area or any protected zone around the airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to change air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or exposure to substantial safety risks. No impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. There are no hazardous road conditions, including sharp curves or dangerous intersections, in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, due to the small size of the project, a minimal number of trips would be generated. As a result, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. No impacts would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency access?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project site is located with an established community currently served by emergency personnel. As part of the plan check process, the project site plan would undergo a fire, life, and safety review by the Fire and Police Departments to ensure adequate infrastructure for emergency response and access. No impacts would occur. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. The project would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs, supporting alternative transportation and programs related to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, such as the Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan (Anaheim 2013). Bicycle lanes are provided on Romneya Drive, west of Euclid Avenue. There are currently sidewalks on all roadways in the study area. The project site is not currently served directly by public transit; however OCTA bus route 37 runs north-south along Euclid Avenue, approximately 500 feet east of the project site, and OCTA bus route 38 runs east-west along La Palma Avenue, approximately 1,700 feet southeast of the project site. Eligible residents at the existing facility are also served by OCTA Access for people who are unable to use the regular, fixed route bus service because of functional limitations caused by a disability. As the proposed expansion consists of 58 assisted living units, it is reasonable that future residents may also be eligible for OCTA Access. The proposed project would not alter or remove any bicycle or pedestrian facility in the vicinity of the project. Furthermore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant addition of bicycle and pedestrian trips. Therefore, no impacts will occur. - 21- XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in §21074?     Narrative Summary: No Impact. Assembly Bill 52 requires meaningful consultation with California Native American Tribes on potential impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in §21074. A tribe must submit a written request to the relevant lead agency if it wishes to be notified of projects within its traditionally and culturally affiliated area. The lead agency must provide written, formal notification to the tribes that have requested it within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete, or deciding to undertake a project. The tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the notification if it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, and the lead agency must being the consultation process within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either 1): the parties agree to mitigation measures to avoid a significant effect, if one exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. AB 52 also addresses confidentiality during tribal consultation per Public Resources Code §21082.3(c). To date, the City of Anaheim has not received any requests from a California Native American Tribe to be consulted on any projects in the City of Anaheim. Further, the project site is currently developed with a 178,260 square foot senior apartment and assisted living facility. Construction activities would occur on the 2.5-acre parcel on the adjacent lot immediately to the south of the existing building, including 1.4-acres of undeveloped turf area, that was previously used for agriculture as recently as 1987. The site is located in an urbanized setting with surrounding residential and commercial uses. There are no known tribal cultural resources at the project site or vicinity. Therefore, no impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur. XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The proposed Project would result in approximately 28,140 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Local governments and water districts are responsible to complying with federal regulations, both for wastewater plant operation and collection systems (e.g., sanitary sewers) that convey wastewater to the wastewater treatment facility. Proper operation and maintenance is critical for sewage collection and treatment as impacts from these processes can degrade water resources and affect human health. All wastewater generated by the proposed project is expected to be domestic sewage. The existing OCSD wastewater facilities that serve the proposed project site currently have a surplus capacity, as required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Wastewater generation for the proposed project is not expected to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the existing OCSD facilities. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to wastewater treatment facilities. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities (including sewer (waste water) collection facilities) or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The proposed project would be served by the Anaheim Public Utilities Department (APUD). The proposed project is located within a developed area and there are existing water mains in the streets surrounding the proposed project. The project would be required to connect to these existing water lines. Due to the small size of the project, no significant impacts on existing water infrastructure would occur and the existing facilities would be adequate to serve the wastewater collection requirements of the proposed project. In addition, the Public Works Department has determined that the project applicant will not be required to submit a sewer study, since the project at maximum occupancy results in a proposed flow that is significantly below the half-full capacity of the existing sewer line. Impacts to water or wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?     - 22- Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. With the development of the site, the amount of impervious surfaces would increase to 75,400 square feet, due to the replacement of approximately 61,000 square feet of turf. The total volume of water runoff produced by the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the drainage system. According to the WQMP prepared for the proposed project, current flow rate for the project site is 15.26 CFS for a 25-year storm. Post-development, the calculated flow rate is estimated to be 16.59 CFS for a 25-year storm, which would result in an increase of 8.72%. Additionally, BMPs would be developed to control runoff and protect water quality. The proposed project would also be required to comply with the Santa Ana MS4 NPDES Permit Program, which regulates storm water and urban runoff discharge from developments. Project operation must also comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. As such, impacts are expected to be less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project (including large-scale developments as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21151.9 and described in Question No. 20 of the Environmental Information Form) from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Anaheim 2011) assumed a General Plan build out for this site; therefore, there are no anticipated water supply deficiencies that would affect this project and the project would not result in the need to obtain new water entitlements. The proposed project would be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code 10.18 Water Reduction Provisions, and Anaheim Municipal Code 10.19 Landscape Water Efficiency to maximize water efficiency. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?     Narrative Summary: Less Than Significant. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing 194-unit senior apartment and assisted living facility with 58 additional assisted living units and associated common spaces, service areas, and exterior hardscape and landscape improvements. The City’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (Anaheim 2011) assumed General Plan build out for this site; therefore, no anticipated wastewater capacity deficiencies would occur and the Project would not result in the need to construct additional wastewater treatment infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?     g) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     h) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to electricity?     I) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to natural gas?     j) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to telephone service?     k) Result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations related to television service/reception?     Narrative Summary (f - k): Less Than Significant. Assembly Bill 939 requires local jurisdictions to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste into recycling. As of 2012, the City is diverting approximately 65 percent of its waste into recycling. Waste from the City is currently being diverted to the Olida Alpha Landfill in the City of Brea and the Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in the City of Irvine. Combined, the two landfills accept approximately 23,500 tons of waste per day, or over seven million tons annually. The project’s contribution of solid waste would be minimal and would not significantly impact landfill operations. No significant impacts would occur. The proposed Project site is located in a built-out, urban setting. The site and the surrounding neighborhood are fully served by various utility service providers. There are no anticipated significant service or system upgrades needed to serve the proposed office use. Any increase in demand for these services would be considered to be less than significant. No significant impacts would occur. - 23- XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?     c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     Narrative Summary: As described in the environmental checklist, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project is located within the SCAQMD which has been designated as a nonattainment area for certain criteria pollutants. Typical construction activities will generate specific criteria pollutants; however, due to the minimal size of the project, it is not expected to result in a cumulatively considerable impact. In addition, due to the small scale of the size and scope of the project, it would not adversely affect human beings, either directly or indirectly. No significant impacts would occur. Fish and Game Determination (Per Section 21089(b) of the Public Resources Code, all project applicants and public agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act shall pay a Fish and Game filing fee for each proposed project that would adversely affect wildlife resources.)* Based on the responses contained in this Environmental Checklist, there is no evidence that the project has a potential for a change that would adversely affect wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Has the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CCR 753.5 (d) been rebutted by substantial evidence? X Yes (Certificate of Fee Exemption and County Administrative fee required) No (Pay fee) *Note: Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)(2)(A) states that projects that are Categorically Exempt from CEQA are also exempt from filing fee. - 24- References Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2006. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm. Accessed on July 6, 2015. Assembly Bill 52: Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act 2015. Available at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB52 Accessed on July 6, 2015 California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. 2014. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA & Climate Change. January 2008. Available At: http://capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf Accessed on July 7, 2015 California Department of Conservation (DOC). The Williamson Act 2014 Status Report Available at: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/stats_reports/Documents/2014%20LCA%20Status%20Report_March_2015.pdf Accessed on July 7, 2015. DOC. California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Instruction Manual. 1997 Available At: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/LESA/lesamodl.pdf , Accessed July 7, 2015 DOC. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Map for Orange County. 2012. Available At: ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/ora12.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015 DOC. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Anaheim and Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Orange County, CA, 1997 Available At: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/evalrpt/anah_eval.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan for the County of Orange Central and Coastal Subregion. 1996. Available at: http://www.naturereserveoc.org/documents.htm Accessed on July 7, 2015. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. Cortese List. Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed on July 7, 2015. California Department of Transportation. Eligible (E) and Officially Designated (OD) [Scenic Highway] Routes. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Accessed on July 7, 2015. California Geologic Survey. Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. September 11, 2008. Available At: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/webdocs/Documents/sp117.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015. City of Anaheim (Anaheim). 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2011. Available At: http://www.anaheim.net/utilities/waterservices/10_UWMP.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015. City of Anaheim. Anaheim Outdoors Connectivity Plan. April 2013. Available At: http://www.anaheim.net/images/articles/5161/Anaheim%20Outdoors%20Connectivity%20Plan_5-2-13.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015 City of Anaheim. Citywide Historic Preservation Plan. May 2010. Available at: http://www.anaheim.net/planning/aRT/PlanCouncil-May2010.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2015. City of Anaheim. General Plan May 25, 2004 Available At: http://www.anaheim.net/generalplan/ Accessed July 7, 2015 Circulation Element Green Element: Mineral Resource Map Noise Element. Pg. N-9 Safety Element: Dam Inundation Map - 25- City of Anaheim. General Plan and Zoning Code Update Environmental Impact Report No. 330. May 25, 2004. Available At: http://www.anaheim.net/generalplan/EIR/eir.htm Accessed July 7, 2015 City of Anaheim. Criteria for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies. Available At: http://www.anaheim.net/pub_works/pdfs/TrafficImpactStudiesCriteria.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015 City of Anaheim. Municipal Code. 1974; updated as recently as June 2015. Available At: http://amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/anaheim/anaheimmunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amleg al:anaheim_ca Accessed July 7, 2015. Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. Regional Landfill Options for Orange County Strategic Plan. December 2001; updated November 2007. Available at: http://oclandfills.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=6676 Accessed July 7, 2015. Orange County Public Works. Drainage Area Management Plan. 2003. Available At: http://cms.ocgov.com/gov/pw/watersheds/documents/damp/mapplan.asp Accessed July 7, 2015. Orange County Transportation Authority. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. 2013. Available At: http://www.octa.net/pdf/Final%202013%20CMP.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015. Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. 2008. Available at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0351-0400/sb_375_bill_20080930_chaptered.pdf. Accessed on July 7, 2015. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2012 Air Quality Management Plan. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2012-air-quality-management-plan Accessed on July 7, 2015. SCAQMD. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 Accessed on July 7, 2015. State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19, 2008. Pg. 4. Available At: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015. United States Census of Population and Housing. 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act). November 27, 2002. Available At: http://www.epw.senate.gov/water.pdf Accessed July 7, 2015. US EPA. The Green Book, Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. December 14, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ Accessed July 7, 2015. - 26- Appendix A CalEEMod Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report July 2015 Project Characteristics - Land Use - Defaults updated for actual data provided by Applicant Construction Phase - Construction Schedule updated per information provided by the Applicant. No demolition is required as the existing site is grass turf. Woodstoves - There are no woodstoves or fireplaces in the proposed project Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Land Use Change - Removal of 2.5 acres of turf and building, hardscape and landscape will replace it Sequestration - 103 new trees will be added Area Mitigation - Orange County, Annual Emerald Court Expansion 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Congregate Care (Assisted Living)58.00 Dwelling Unit 2.50 57,000.00 63 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 8 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 30 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Anaheim Public Utilities 2016Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 1543.28 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 60.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 1 of 34 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 212.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 1.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 17.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 3.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 5/25/2017 12/28/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 4/18/2016 4/15/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 3/3/2017 10/6/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/16/2016 4/18/2016 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 4/5/2016 4/4/2016 tblFireplaces FireplaceDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceHourDay 3.00 0.00 tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberGas 49.30 0.00 tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 5.80 58.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 2.90 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 8.50 3.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 15.00 4.50 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 58,000.00 57,000.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 3.63 2.50 tblLandUse Population 166.00 63.00 tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2014 2016 tblSequestration NumberOfNewTrees 0.00 103.00 tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 2.90 0.00 tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 2.90 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00 tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 2 of 34 2.0 Emissions Summary 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2016 0.6037 2.6463 2.0068 3.1200e- 003 0.1012 0.1672 0.2684 0.0409 0.1594 0.2003 0.0000 266.0333 266.0333 0.0533 0.0000 267.1528 2017 0.1093 0.8321 0.6594 1.0700e- 003 0.0141 0.0519 0.0659 3.7600e- 003 0.0489 0.0527 0.0000 91.2823 91.2823 0.0201 0.0000 91.7050 Total 0.7130 3.4783 2.6662 4.1900e- 003 0.1153 0.2191 0.3344 0.0446 0.2084 0.2530 0.0000 357.3156 357.3156 0.0734 0.0000 358.8578 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2016 0.6037 2.6463 2.0068 3.1200e- 003 0.1012 0.1672 0.2684 0.0409 0.1594 0.2003 0.0000 266.0330 266.0330 0.0533 0.0000 267.1525 2017 0.1093 0.8321 0.6594 1.0700e- 003 0.0141 0.0519 0.0659 3.7600e- 003 0.0489 0.0527 0.0000 91.2822 91.2822 0.0201 0.0000 91.7049 Total 0.7130 3.4783 2.6662 4.1900e- 003 0.1153 0.2191 0.3344 0.0446 0.2084 0.2530 0.0000 357.3153 357.3153 0.0734 0.0000 358.8575 Mitigated Construction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 3 of 34 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Energy 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 167.9055 167.9055 3.1700e- 003 1.0400e- 003 168.2938 Mobile 0.0915 0.2432 1.0849 2.6800e- 003 0.1961 3.1800e- 003 0.1993 0.0524 2.9200e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 211.8620 211.8620 8.5700e- 003 0.0000 212.0420 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.7423 0.0000 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1989 52.9731 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7439 Total 0.3415 0.2734 1.7011 2.8600e- 003 0.1961 8.3100e- 003 0.2044 0.0524 8.0500e- 003 0.0605 11.9412 433.7176 445.6588 0.7717 4.1500e- 003 463.1518 Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 4 of 34 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Energy 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 167.9055 167.9055 3.1700e- 003 1.0400e- 003 168.2938 Mobile 0.0914 0.2429 1.0837 2.6800e- 003 0.1958 3.1700e- 003 0.1990 0.0523 2.9200e- 003 0.0552 0.0000 211.5688 211.5688 8.5600e- 003 0.0000 211.7486 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.7423 0.0000 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1989 52.9731 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7420 Total 0.3415 0.2731 1.7000 2.8600e- 003 0.1958 8.3000e- 003 0.2041 0.0523 8.0500e- 003 0.0604 11.9412 433.4245 445.3656 0.7717 4.1500e- 003 462.8565 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.06 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 5 of 34 3.0 Construction Detail 2.3 Vegetation CO2e Category MT New Trees 72.9240 Vegetation Land Change 0.0000 Total 72.9240 Vegetation Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 4/4/2016 4/4/2016 5 1 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 4/4/2016 4/15/2016 5 10 3 Grading Grading 4/18/2016 5/10/2016 5 17 4 Building Construction Building Construction 5/11/2016 3/2/2017 5 212 5 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 10/6/2016 12/28/2016 5 60 6 Paving Paving 12/29/2016 2/22/2017 5 40 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 4.5 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 3 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 6 of 34 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Site Preparation Scrapers 1 8.00 361 0.48 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 1 8.00 174 0.41 Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 255 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Cranes 1 8.00 226 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 2 7.00 89 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 8.00 9 0.56 Paving Pavers 1 8.00 125 0.42 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 130 0.36 Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT Residential Indoor: 115,425; Residential Outdoor: 38,475; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft) CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 7 of 34 3.2 Demolition - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.4500e- 003 0.0141 0.0108 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1281 1.1281 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1341 Total 1.4500e- 003 0.0141 0.0108 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1281 1.1281 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1341 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 8 42.00 6.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 8.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 8 of 34 3.2 Demolition - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0643 0.0643 0.0000 0.0000 0.0644 Total 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0643 0.0643 0.0000 0.0000 0.0644 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.4500e- 003 0.0141 0.0108 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1281 1.1281 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1341 Total 1.4500e- 003 0.0141 0.0108 1.0000e- 005 8.7000e- 004 8.7000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 8.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.1281 1.1281 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.1341 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 9 of 34 3.2 Demolition - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0643 0.0643 0.0000 0.0000 0.0644 Total 2.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.4000e- 004 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0643 0.0643 0.0000 0.0000 0.0644 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0135 0.1541 0.0903 1.2000e- 004 7.5600e- 003 7.5600e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 0.0000 11.2495 11.2495 3.3900e- 003 0.0000 11.3208 Total 0.0135 0.1541 0.0903 1.2000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.5600e- 003 9.9500e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 7.2100e- 003 0.0000 11.2495 11.2495 3.3900e- 003 0.0000 11.3208 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 10 of 34 3.3 Site Preparation - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3958 0.3958 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3962 Total 1.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3958 0.3958 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3962 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 2.3900e- 003 0.0000 2.3900e- 003 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0135 0.1541 0.0903 1.2000e- 004 7.5600e- 003 7.5600e- 003 6.9500e- 003 6.9500e- 003 0.0000 11.2495 11.2495 3.3900e- 003 0.0000 11.3208 Total 0.0135 0.1541 0.0903 1.2000e- 004 2.3900e- 003 7.5600e- 003 9.9500e- 003 2.6000e- 004 6.9500e- 003 7.2100e- 003 0.0000 11.2495 11.2495 3.3900e- 003 0.0000 11.3208 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 11 of 34 3.3 Site Preparation - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3958 0.3958 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3962 Total 1.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.1100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 4.4000e- 004 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.3958 0.3958 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3962 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0528 0.0000 0.0528 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0243 0.2546 0.1669 1.7000e- 004 0.0142 0.0142 0.0130 0.0130 0.0000 16.4961 16.4961 4.9800e- 003 0.0000 16.6006 Total 0.0243 0.2546 0.1669 1.7000e- 004 0.0528 0.0142 0.0670 0.0283 0.0130 0.0414 0.0000 16.4961 16.4961 4.9800e- 003 0.0000 16.6006 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 12 of 34 3.4 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8420 Total 2.9000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8420 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0528 0.0000 0.0528 0.0283 0.0000 0.0283 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0243 0.2546 0.1669 1.7000e- 004 0.0142 0.0142 0.0130 0.0130 0.0000 16.4961 16.4961 4.9800e- 003 0.0000 16.6006 Total 0.0243 0.2546 0.1669 1.7000e- 004 0.0528 0.0142 0.0670 0.0283 0.0130 0.0414 0.0000 16.4961 16.4961 4.9800e- 003 0.0000 16.6006 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 13 of 34 3.4 Grading - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.9000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8420 Total 2.9000e- 004 4.3000e- 004 4.4900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 9.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.8411 0.8411 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.8420 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3107 2.0691 1.4042 2.0900e- 003 0.1366 0.1366 0.1308 0.1308 0.0000 179.2477 179.2477 0.0413 0.0000 180.1151 Total 0.3107 2.0691 1.4042 2.0900e- 003 0.1366 0.1366 0.1308 0.1308 0.0000 179.2477 179.2477 0.0413 0.0000 180.1151 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 14 of 34 3.5 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.7100e- 003 0.0455 0.0594 1.1000e- 004 3.1000e- 003 6.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 003 8.9000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 9.8801 9.8801 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.8816 Worker 0.0121 0.0179 0.1862 4.6000e- 004 0.0387 2.8000e- 004 0.0390 0.0103 2.5000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 34.9101 34.9101 1.7100e- 003 0.0000 34.9459 Total 0.0168 0.0634 0.2456 5.7000e- 004 0.0418 9.7000e- 004 0.0428 0.0112 8.9000e- 004 0.0121 0.0000 44.7902 44.7902 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 44.8276 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.3107 2.0691 1.4042 2.0900e- 003 0.1366 0.1366 0.1308 0.1308 0.0000 179.2475 179.2475 0.0413 0.0000 180.1149 Total 0.3107 2.0691 1.4042 2.0900e- 003 0.1366 0.1366 0.1308 0.1308 0.0000 179.2475 179.2475 0.0413 0.0000 180.1149 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 15 of 34 3.5 Building Construction - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 4.7100e- 003 0.0455 0.0594 1.1000e- 004 3.1000e- 003 6.9000e- 004 3.8000e- 003 8.9000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 1.5200e- 003 0.0000 9.8801 9.8801 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.8816 Worker 0.0121 0.0179 0.1862 4.6000e- 004 0.0387 2.8000e- 004 0.0390 0.0103 2.5000e- 004 0.0105 0.0000 34.9101 34.9101 1.7100e- 003 0.0000 34.9459 Total 0.0168 0.0634 0.2456 5.7000e- 004 0.0418 9.7000e- 004 0.0428 0.0112 8.9000e- 004 0.0121 0.0000 44.7902 44.7902 1.7800e- 003 0.0000 44.8276 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0732 0.5029 0.3575 5.5000e- 004 0.0322 0.0322 0.0308 0.0308 0.0000 46.5991 46.5991 0.0104 0.0000 46.8166 Total 0.0732 0.5029 0.3575 5.5000e- 004 0.0322 0.0322 0.0308 0.0308 0.0000 46.5991 46.5991 0.0104 0.0000 46.8166 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 16 of 34 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1400e- 003 0.0108 0.0147 3.0000e- 005 8.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5455 2.5455 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5459 Worker 2.8700e- 003 4.2500e- 003 0.0444 1.2000e- 004 0.0101 7.0000e- 005 0.0102 2.6900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.7600e- 003 0.0000 8.7893 8.7893 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.7980 Total 4.0100e- 003 0.0151 0.0591 1.5000e- 004 0.0110 2.3000e- 004 0.0112 2.9200e- 003 2.2000e- 004 3.1400e- 003 0.0000 11.3348 11.3348 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.3439 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0732 0.5029 0.3575 5.5000e- 004 0.0322 0.0322 0.0308 0.0308 0.0000 46.5990 46.5990 0.0104 0.0000 46.8165 Total 0.0732 0.5029 0.3575 5.5000e- 004 0.0322 0.0322 0.0308 0.0308 0.0000 46.5990 46.5990 0.0104 0.0000 46.8165 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 17 of 34 3.5 Building Construction - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1400e- 003 0.0108 0.0147 3.0000e- 005 8.1000e- 004 1.6000e- 004 9.7000e- 004 2.3000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 3.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.5455 2.5455 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.5459 Worker 2.8700e- 003 4.2500e- 003 0.0444 1.2000e- 004 0.0101 7.0000e- 005 0.0102 2.6900e- 003 7.0000e- 005 2.7600e- 003 0.0000 8.7893 8.7893 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 8.7980 Total 4.0100e- 003 0.0151 0.0591 1.5000e- 004 0.0110 2.3000e- 004 0.0112 2.9200e- 003 2.2000e- 004 3.1400e- 003 0.0000 11.3348 11.3348 4.4000e- 004 0.0000 11.3439 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.2229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0111 0.0712 0.0565 9.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.6787 Total 0.2340 0.0712 0.0565 9.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.6787 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 18 of 34 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 0.0127 3.0000e- 005 2.6300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6500e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3748 2.3748 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3773 Total 8.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 0.0127 3.0000e- 005 2.6300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6500e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3748 2.3748 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3773 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.2229 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0111 0.0712 0.0565 9.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.6787 Total 0.2340 0.0712 0.0565 9.0000e- 005 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 5.9000e- 003 0.0000 7.6598 7.6598 9.0000e- 004 0.0000 7.6787 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 19 of 34 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 0.0127 3.0000e- 005 2.6300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6500e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3748 2.3748 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3773 Total 8.2000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 0.0127 3.0000e- 005 2.6300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.6500e- 003 7.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3748 2.3748 1.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3773 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7800e- 003 0.0179 0.0121 2.0000e- 005 1.1300e- 003 1.1300e- 003 1.0400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.6373 1.6373 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6475 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7800e- 003 0.0179 0.0121 2.0000e- 005 1.1300e- 003 1.1300e- 003 1.0400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.6373 1.6373 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6475 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 20 of 34 3.7 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1484 0.1484 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1486 Total 5.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1484 0.1484 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1486 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 1.7800e- 003 0.0179 0.0121 2.0000e- 005 1.1300e- 003 1.1300e- 003 1.0400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.6373 1.6373 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6475 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.7800e- 003 0.0179 0.0121 2.0000e- 005 1.1300e- 003 1.1300e- 003 1.0400e- 003 1.0400e- 003 0.0000 1.6373 1.6373 4.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.6475 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 21 of 34 3.7 Paving - 2016 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1484 0.1484 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1486 Total 5.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.6000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1484 0.1484 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1486 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Paving - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0312 0.3128 0.2291 3.3000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0179 0.0179 0.0000 30.6375 30.6375 9.2100e- 003 0.0000 30.8309 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0312 0.3128 0.2291 3.3000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0179 0.0179 0.0000 30.6375 30.6375 9.2100e- 003 0.0000 30.8309 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 22 of 34 3.7 Paving - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.8000e- 004 1.3100e- 003 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7110 2.7110 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.7137 Total 8.8000e- 004 1.3100e- 003 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7110 2.7110 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.7137 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0312 0.3128 0.2291 3.3000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0179 0.0179 0.0000 30.6374 30.6374 9.2100e- 003 0.0000 30.8309 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0312 0.3128 0.2291 3.3000e- 004 0.0194 0.0194 0.0179 0.0179 0.0000 30.6374 30.6374 9.2100e- 003 0.0000 30.8309 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 23 of 34 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile Increase Density 3.7 Paving - 2017 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 8.8000e- 004 1.3100e- 003 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7110 2.7110 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.7137 Total 8.8000e- 004 1.3100e- 003 0.0137 4.0000e- 005 3.1300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.1500e- 003 8.3000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 8.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.7110 2.7110 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.7137 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 24 of 34 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0914 0.2429 1.0837 2.6800e- 003 0.1958 3.1700e- 003 0.1990 0.0523 2.9200e- 003 0.0552 0.0000 211.5688 211.5688 8.5600e- 003 0.0000 211.7486 Unmitigated 0.0915 0.2432 1.0849 2.6800e- 003 0.1961 3.1800e- 003 0.1993 0.0524 2.9200e- 003 0.0553 0.0000 211.8620 211.8620 8.5700e- 003 0.0000 212.0420 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Congregate Care (Assisted Living)158.92 127.60 141.52 519,270 518,534 Total 158.92 127.60 141.52 519,270 518,534 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy 4.4 Fleet Mix LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH 0.511008 0.057223 0.191597 0.152361 0.041328 0.005882 0.015289 0.014281 0.001428 0.002141 0.004713 0.000509 0.002239 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 25 of 34 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 141.2450 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 141.2450 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 NaturalGas Mitigated 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 NaturalGas Unmitigated 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 499600 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 Total 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 26 of 34 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 499600 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 Total 2.6900e- 003 0.0230 9.8000e- 003 1.5000e- 004 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 1.8600e- 003 0.0000 26.6606 26.6606 5.1000e- 004 4.9000e- 004 26.8228 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 201773 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 Total 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 27 of 34 No Hearths Installed 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Unmitigated 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 201773 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 Total 141.2450 2.6500e- 003 5.5000e- 004 141.4709 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 28 of 34 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0191 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Total 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 29 of 34 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7420 Unmitigated 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7439 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0223 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2060 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0191 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Total 0.2474 7.1000e- 003 0.6065 3.0000e- 005 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 3.2700e- 003 0.0000 0.9770 0.9770 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 0.9980 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 30 of 34 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.77893 / 2.38237 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7439 Total 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7439 Unmitigated Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 3.77893 / 2.38237 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7420 Total 54.1719 0.1241 3.1100e- 003 57.7420 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 31 of 34 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Unmitigated 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Category/Year 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 52.92 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Total 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 32 of 34 10.0 Vegetation 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Congregate Care (Assisted Living) 52.92 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Total 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 24.0742 Mitigated Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT Unmitigated 72.9240 0.0000 0.0000 72.9240 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 33 of 34 10.1 Vegetation Land Change Initial/Fina l Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Acres MT Others 2.5 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vegetation Type 10.2 Net New Trees Number of Trees Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT Miscellaneous 103 72.9240 0.0000 0.0000 72.9240 Total 72.9240 0.0000 0.0000 72.9240 Species Class CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2013.2.2 Date: 7/6/2015 12:04 PMPage 34 of 34 SH E E T I N D E X Sh e e t N u m b e r S h e e t N a m e A0 C o v e r G1 . 0 0 S i t e P h o t o s A1 . 0 0 e E x i s t i n g O v e r a l l S i t e P l a n A1 . 0 0 O v e r a l l S i t e P l a n A1 . 0 1 A r c h i t e c t u r a l S i t e P l a n C1 C i v i l S i t e P l a n C2 C o n c e p t u a l G r a d i n g a n d U t i l i t y P l a n LC - 1 H a r d s c a p e P l a n LC - 2 S i g n W a l l & F e n c e E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n LC - 3 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d s ) LC - 4 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d s A & C ) LC - 5 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d B ) LP - 1 P l a n t i n g P l a n LP - 2 S i g n W a l l & F e n c e E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n LP - 3 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d s ) LP - 4 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d s A & C ) LP - 5 E n l a r g e m e n t P l a n ( C o u r t y a r d B ) A2 . 0 1 F i r s t F l o o r P l a n A2 . 0 2 S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n A2 . 0 3 R o o f P l a n A3 . 0 1 E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A3 . 1 1 B u i l d i n g / S i t e S e c t i o n A6 . 0 1 T y p i c a l U n i t P l a n s A6 . 0 2 E n l a r g e d F l o o r P l a n s 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105Development Application Re-Submittal June 17, 2015 Em e r a l d C o u r t E x p a n s i o n 17 3 1 W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e An a h e i m , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 0 1 KS L A n a h e i m I I L P 57 9 0 F l e e t S t r e e t , S u i t e 3 0 0 Ca r l s b a d , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 0 0 8 (7 6 0 ) 8 0 4 - 5 9 0 0 87 N R a y m o n d A v e # 2 1 7 Pa s a d e n a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 1 1 0 3 (2 1 3 ) 2 9 0 - 3 2 2 0 16 7 9 5 V a n K a r m a n , S u i t e 1 0 0 Ir v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 0 6 (9 4 9 ) 4 7 4 - 1 9 6 0 38 0 N P a l m S t r e e t , S u i t e B Br e a , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 8 2 1 (5 6 2 ) 9 0 5 - 0 8 0 0 22 1 M a i n S t r e e t , S u i t e 8 0 0 Sa n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 0 5 (4 1 5 ) 9 8 9 - 1 0 0 4 ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Site Photos G1.001731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801Emerald Court Main Entry Driveway Project Location at Left Em e r a l d C o u r t Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n f r o m W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e Em e r a l d C o u r t S e c o n d a r y E n t r y D r i v e w a y Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n a t R i g h t Em e r a l d C o u r t Ex i s t i n g P o r t e - C o c h e r e Emerald Court Existing Building at end of Main Entry Driveway Em e r a l d C o u r t Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g Medical Lab Building South West from Project Location Me d i c a l O f ﬁ c e s ac r o s s W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e f r o m P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n Me d i c a l O f ﬁ c e s ac r o s s W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e f r o m P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n We s t e r n E d g e o f E m e r a l d C o u r t P r o p e r t y sh o w i n g P e r i m e t e r W a l l o f N e i g h b o r i n g M o b i l e H o m e C o m m u n i t y Toyota Sales Center East of Project Location at left Ap a r t m e n t B u i l d i n g fu r t h e r W e s t a l o n g W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g W M E D I C A L C E N T E R D R I V E CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 1" = 30'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number June 17, 2015Existing Overall Site Plan A1.00e1731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " 1 Ov e r a l l S i t e P l a n 1110 810 4 10 9 8 8 2 6 2 21010 897 87 5 2 2 12 co v e r e d 4 12 co v e r e d 2 F i r e A c c e s s F i r e A c c e s s W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e (E ) 1 - S t o r y Bu i l d i n g (E ) 3 - S t o r y B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) C o u r t y a r d 2 11 6 ' x 6 4 ' - 6 " (N ) C o u r t y a r d 1 47 ' - 6 " x 8 4 ' (N ) D r o p - O f f 1 5 ( N ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 2 ( N ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g ( E ) D r o p - O f f ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 2 A c c e s s i b l e Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Ma i n E n t r y Dr i v e w a y Se c o n d a r y En t r y D r i v e w a y (N ) Co u r t y a r d 3 20 ' x 3 6 ' (E ) 1 - S t o r y B u i l d i n g -2 ( E ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s 3 3 ' - 0 " (N ) L o g g i a (E ) S e r v i c e / T r a s h Ar e a (E ) 1 - S t o r y Si n g l e F a m i l y H o m e s -1 ( E ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 4 ( N ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s 5 ( N ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s Se r v i c e Tu r n - Ar o u n d 9 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " T y p 8 ' - 6 " fi r e l a n e 24 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 0 " 51 ' R e q ' d Se t b a c k 10 8 ' . 1 0 ' R e q ' d S e t b a c k 1 9 ' - 0 " fi r e l a n e 24 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 7' x 5 0 ' L i n e o f S i g h t T r i a n g l e 7' x 5 0 ' L i n e o f S i g h t T r i a n g l e 8' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 0 " 0' R e q ' d Se t b a c k 11 9 ' - 0 " . 2 0 ' - 0 " (E ) P r o p e r t y L i n e (E ) P r o p e r t y L i n e ( N ) L o g g i a VA N (E ) G a t e to b e r e m o v e d (E ) G a t e to b e r e m o v e d T y p 2 2 ' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 1" = 30'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number July 7, 2015Overall Site Plan A1.001731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 1 " = 3 0 ' - 0 " 1 Ov e r a l l S i t e P l a n Unit Mix Existing Building Independent Living 1-Bedroom 1 2 6 2-Bedroom 2 2 subtotal 1 4 8 ( 1 7 0 B e d s ) Assisted Living Studio 1 6 1-Bedroom 2 6 2-Bedroom 4 subtotal 4 6 ( 5 0 B e d s ) Total Existing 1 9 4 ( 2 2 0 B e d s ) New Building (Assisted Living)Studio (1 Bed) 1 3 ( 2 2 . 4 % ) Alcove (1 Bed) 1 2 ( 2 0 . 7 % ) 1 Bedroom (1 Bed) 2 8 ( 4 8 . 3 % ) 2 Bedroom (2 Bed) 5 (8.6%)Total Proposed 5 8 U n i t s ( 6 3 B e d s ) Parking Tabulation (E) in Rear Lot 1 1 8 - 2 (E) in Front Lot 4 7 - 1 (N) in Porte Cochere 2 (N) in Front Lot 24 Total Expected 1 8 8 (see parking study for additional information) 1110 810 21010 897 87 5 2 2 4 8 . 1 ' 1 1 9 . 9 ' 6 5 .0 ' 1 8 . 8 ' 9 6 . 5 ' 10 2 . 0 ' 14 9 . 9 ' 2 . 2 ' Li m i t o f W o r k 9 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " T y p 8 ' - 6 " W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e (E ) 1 - S t o r y Bu i l d i n g (E ) 3 - S t o r y B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) C o u r t y a r d 2 11 6 ' x 6 4 ' - 6 " (N ) C o u r t y a r d 1 47 ' - 6 " x 8 4 ' (N ) D r o p - O f f 1 5 ( N ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 2 ( N ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g (N ) B u i l d i n g ( E ) D r o p - O f f (N ) M o n u m e n t S i g n Se e L C - 2 2 2 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 0 " 51 ' R e q ' d Se t b a c k 10 8 ' . ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 2 A c c e s s i b l e Pa r k i n g S p a c e s Ma i n E n t r y Dr i v e w a y Se c o n d a r y En t r y D r i v e w a y (N ) Co u r t y a r d 3 20 ' x 3 6 ' 0' R e q ' d Se t b a c k 11 9 ' - 0 " . (E ) 1 - S t o r y B u i l d i n g -2 ( E ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s 3 3 ' - 0 " (N ) L o g g i a (E ) S e r v i c e / Tr a s h A r e a (E ) 1 - S t o r y Si n g l e F a m i l y H o m e s 51 ' R e q ' d Se t b a c k 6 7 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 9' - 0 " -1 ( E ) Pa r k i n g S p a c e ( E ) P a r k i n g S p a c e s 4 ( N ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s 5 ( N ) Pa r k i n g Sp a c e s 8' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " 18 ' - 5 1 7 / 3 2 " T y p 2 2 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 0 " ( N ) L o g g i a 7' x 5 0 ' L i n e o f S i g h t T r i a n g l e 7' x 5 0 ' L i n e o f S i g h t T r i a n g l e VA N (E ) G a t e to b e r e m o v e d (E ) G a t e to b e r e m o v e d F i r e A c c e s s F i r e A c c e s s fi r e l a n e 24 ' - 0 " fi r e l a n e 24 ' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " dr i v e w a y 25 ' - 0 " 1 9 ' - 0 " r e q ' d s e t b a c k 1 0 ' - 0 " CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 1" = 20'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number June 17, 2015Architectural Site Plan A1.011731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 1 " = 2 0 ' - 0 " 1 Si t e P l a n PROJECT DATA Site Area 108,923 SF = 2.501 Acres FAR: 0.5 Allowable Building Area: 5 4 , 4 7 1 G S F Proposed Building Area: 5 7 , 0 0 0 G S F Type of Construction: Type V - 1 Hour, Fully Sprinklered Occupancy: R2.1 Setbacks R e q u i r e d P r o v i d e d Front: 10' 1 8 ' Side & Rear (abutting non-residential zone): none 1 1 9 ' (abutting residential zone): 51' 1 0 8 ' Assisted Living Units Studio (1 Bed) 1 3 ( 2 2 . 4 % ) Alcove (1 Bed) 1 2 ( 2 0 . 7 % ) 1 Bedroom (1 Bed) 2 8 ( 4 8 . 3 % ) 2 Bedroom (2 Bed) 5 (8.6%)total 5 8 28 AL (1st Floor)30 AL (2nd Floor)Parking Tabulation (E) in Rear Lot 1 1 8 - 2 (E) in Front Lot 4 7 - 1 (N) in Porte Cochere 2 (N) in Front Lot 24 Total Expected 1 8 8 (see parking study for additional information)Vicinity MapProjectLocation G N I R E E N E I G N 1 6 7 9 5 V o n K a r m a n , S u i t e 1 0 0 I r v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 0 6 t e l 9 4 9 . 4 7 4 . 1 9 6 0 f a x 9 4 9 . 4 7 4 . 5 3 1 5 w w w . f u s c o e . c o m 1 7 3 1 W . M E D I C A L C E N T E R D R I V E A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 L E G E N D : L E G E N D : G N I R E E N E I G N 1 6 7 9 5 V o n K a r m a n , S u i t e 1 0 0 I r v i n e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 2 6 0 6 t e l 9 4 9 . 4 7 4 . 1 9 6 0 f a x 9 4 9 . 4 7 4 . 5 3 1 5 w w w . f u s c o e . c o m 1 7 3 1 W . M E D I C A L C E N T E R D R I V E A N A H E I M , C A 9 2 8 0 1 87 5 2 2 A3.01 1 A3 . 0 1 A3 . 0 1 A3 . 0 1 3 4 2 18 7 S F Ca r e g i v e r Di s c o v e r y Of f i c e AL D i r e c t o r Lo b b y 99 3 S F Li v i n g R o o m 92 4 S F Ac t i v i t y R o o m 12 8 6 S F We l l n e s s 13 6 0 S F Bi s t r o 16 1 7 S F Di n i n g R o o m Be v e r a g e s 36 5 S F St a f f L o u n g e 37 5 S F Ma i n L a u n d r y Me n 14 3 S F Me d Al c o v e 7 Al c o v e 8 1 B R 9 1 B R 10 2 B R 17 1 B R 18 Al c o v e 16 Co u r t y a r d 3 Co u r t y a r d 1 Co u r t y a r d 2 Pa t i o R a m p 2 P a r k i n g S p a c e s 1 8 P a r k i n g S p a c e s 43 8 S F Fa m i l y R o o m L o g g i a Lo g g i a St u d i o 15 Re c e p t i o n 49 S F St o . 70 S F M/ E 1 B R 5 2 B R 6 1 B R 13 Al c o v e 26 1 B R 25 1 B R 24 1 B R 23 1 B R 27 Al c o v e 22 St u d i o 14 35 1 S F Ca r d / P u z z l e Ro o m Co v e r e d Pa t i o 25 4 S F La u n d r y 10 5 S F St o . M/ E 1 B R 20 1 B R 3 Al c o v e 4 Wo r k r o o m Ma i n E n t r y Dr o p - O f f (E ) K i t c h e n (E ) D i n i n g ( E ) E n t r y 36 1 S F Wa l k e r St o r a g e 1 B R 28 1 B R 21 1 B R 12 St u d i o 11 St u d i o 19 St u d i o 2 St u d i o 1 Ga l l e r y Wo m e n 29 5 S F Ma i n E l e c t r i c a l Ro o m M/ E 6 4 ' - 6 " 11 6 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 3 6 ' - 0 " 8 4 ' - 0 " 48 ' - 0 " St o r a g e 1 A3 . 1 1 2 A3 . 1 1 3 A3 . 1 1 Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Pa t i o Patio Patio Patio Patio ( E ) D r o p - O f f 2H R S e p a r a t i o n CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 3/32" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015First Floor Plan A2.011731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Fi r s t F l o o r P l a n STAIR 2269 2 7 0 S T A I R 4 A3.01 1 A3 . 0 1 A3 . 0 1 A3 . 0 1 3 4 2 14 3 S F Me d 18 6 S F Ca r e g i v e r St u d i o 48 Al c o v e 331 B R 32 St u d i o 31 1 B R 34 2 B R 35 2 B R 46 Al c o v e 36 1 B R 38 Al c o v e 37 1 B R 39 1 B R 41 1 B R 42 1 B R 47 St u d i o 43 Al c o v e 45 Me c h 1 B R 54 Al c o v e 55 Al c o v e 51 1 B R 56 St u d i o 58 1 B R 53 1 B R 57 47 0 S F Be a u t y Fl a t R o o f Ro o f St u d i o 44 2 B R + 29 49 S F St o . El e c El e c 25 4 S F La u n d r y Ro o f Ro o f Ro o f St u d i o 30 1 B R 49 1 B R 50 St u d i o 40 1 B R 52 op e n t o be l o w op e n t o be l o w op e n t o be l o w 35 1 S F Co m m o n op e n t o be l o w op e n t o be l o w M/ E (E ) F l a t R o o f (E ) R o o f 2: 1 2 S l o p e , T y p Fl a t Ro o f 1 A3 . 1 1 2 A3 . 1 1 3 A3 . 1 1 CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 3/32" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Second Floor Plan A2.021731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Se c o n d F l o o r P l a n Hi g h R o o f Hi g h R o o f Hi g h R o o f Lo w R o o f 4: 1 2 S l o p e , T y p (E ) R o o f Co n d e n s i n g U n i t s , Ty p . 1 A3 . 1 1 2 A3 . 1 1 3 A3 . 1 1 CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 3/32" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Roof Plan A2.031731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ro o f P l a n First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0" 2 6 ' - 0 " . 1 8 ' - 4 " Cu l t u r e d Le d g e r S t o n e Co m p o s i t i o n Sh i n g l e R o o f to m a t c h e x i s t i n g Ce m e n t i t i o u s Bo a r d La p S i d i n g Wh i t e V i n y l Wi n d o w s to m a t c h e x i s t i n g , t y p Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t Pl a s t e r Co l o r 1 Top of Roof 29' - 0"First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0" 2 6 ' - 0 " . 1 8 ' - 4 " (E ) B u i l d i n g B e y o n d Cultured Ledger Stone Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o f to m a t c h e x i s t i n g Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Co l o r 2 Wh i t e V i n y l W i n d o w s to m a t c h e x i s t i n g , t y p Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Co l o r 1 Top of Roof 29' - 0"First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0" 2 6 ' - 0 " . 1 9 ' - 0 " Cu l t u r e d Le d g e r S t o n e Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e Ro o f to m a t c h e x i s t i n g Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Co l o r 2 Al u m i n u m S t o r e f r o n t Wi n d o w S y s t e m Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t Pl a s t e r Co l o r 1 En t r y Co u r t y a r d 1 Bi s t r o Top of Roof 29' - 0"First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0" 2 6 ' - 0 " . 1 8 ' - 4 " (E ) B u i l d i n g Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o f to m a t c h e x i s t i n g Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Co l o r 2 Wh i t e V i n y l W i n d o w s to m a t c h e x i s t i n g , t y p Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Co l o r 1 Top of Roof 29' - 0"CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 3/32" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Exterior Elevations A3.011731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ea s t E l e v a t i o n 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 So u t h E l e v a t i o n 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 No r t h E l e v a t i o n 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 We s t E l e v a t i o n Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 1 Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 2 Le d g e r S t o n e C o m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o ﬁ n g Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 1 Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 2 Le d g e r S t o n e Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o ﬁ n g Al u m i n u m W i n d o w , Ty p i c a l Al u m i n u m W i n d o w , Ty p i c a l Po r t i o n A d j a c e n t t o E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g Al u m i n u m S t o r e f r o n t W i n d o w Le d g e r S t o n e Ba s e Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t P l a s t e r Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 1 Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o ﬁ n g Co m p o s i t i o n S h i n g l e R o o ﬁ n g Le d g e r S t o n e Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 2 Ce m e n t i t i o u s B o a r d La p S i d i n g Co l o r 1 Al u m i n u m W i n d o w , Ty p i c a l Ex t e r i o r C e m e n t Pl a s t e r Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g Be y o n d Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g Be y o n d Existing Building 2 9 ’ - 0 ” T o p o f R o o f 2 1 ’ - 0 ” R o o f E a v e 2 9 ’ - 0 ” T o p o f R o o f 2 1 ’ - 0 ” R o o f E a v e 2 9 ’ - 0 ” T o p o f R o o f 2 1 ’ - 0 ” R o o f E a v e 21’-0” Roof Eave 29’-0” Top of Roof First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0"Top of Roof 29' - 0" 1 B R 1 B R Co u r t y a r d 2 St u d i o St u d i o 1 B R 1 B R 1 B R 1 B R First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0"Top of Roof 29' - 0" We l l n e s s Di n i n g R o o m Co u r t y a r d 3 Co u r t y a r d 1 A3 . 1 1 4 First Floor 0' - 0"Second Floor 11' - 0"Roof 23' - 0"Top of Roof 29' - 0" 1 B R Ac t i v i t y R o o m Co u r t y a r d 2 Co u r t y a r d 1 1 B R 1 B R 1 B R Ex p o s e d B e a m Ce m e n t i t i o u s Pa n e l C e i l i n g Me t a l F a s c i a 1 0 ' - 0 " Wo o d P o s t s Pr e c a s t C o n c T r i m St o n e B a s e Dr a i n a g e G u t t e r CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P As indicatedEmerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Building / Site Sections A3.111731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Se c t i o n 1 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Se c t i o n 2 3 / 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 Se c t i o n 3 3 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 Lo g g i a S e c t i o n 17' - 0"24' - 0"2' - 0" 21 ' - 6 1 / 4 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 24 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 34 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " at 2nd Floor (9'-8" at 1st Floor)at 2nd Floor (8'-4" at 1st Floor)at 2nd Floor (8'-4" at 1st Floor)+9' - 0"+8' - 0"+8' - 0" at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) +9 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) +9 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (9 ' - 8 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) at 2 n d F l o o r (8 ' - 4 " a t 1 s t F l o o r ) +9 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " Recessed Can Light Pendant Light Wall Mounted LightLEGENDSurface Mounted Light 42 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 2 6 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +9 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " +8 ' - 0 " CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 1/4" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Typical Unit Plans A6.011731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Typical Unit Plan - Studio 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Ty p i c a l U n i t P l a n - A l c o v e 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 Ty p i c a l U n i t P l a n - 1 B e d r o o m 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 Ty p i c a l U n i t P l a n - 2 B e d r o o m 1/4" = 1'-0"5 Typical Unit RCP - Studio 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 6 Ty p i c a l U n i t R C P - A l c o v e 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 8 Ty p i c a l U n i t R C P - 2 B e d r o o m 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 7 Ty p i c a l U n i t R C P - 1 B e d r o o m BathroomKitchenetteLiving Area 16' x 11- 6"419 GSF 405 NSF Ba t h r o o m Ki t c h e n e t t e Li v i n g A r e a 20 ' - 6 " x 1 1 ' - 6 " 49 4 G F S 47 6 N S F Ba t h r o o m Ki t c h e n e t t e Be d r o o m 11 ' - 4 " x 1 0 ' Li v i n g A r e a 11 ' - 4 " x 1 6 ' - 4 " 58 7 G S F 57 2 N S F Ba t h r o o m Ki t c h e n e t t e Ba t h r o o m Be d r o o m 11 ' - 4 " x 1 0 ' Li v i n g A r e a 11 ' - 4 " x 1 6 ' - 4 " Be d r o o m 10 ' x 1 1 ' - 6 " 84 2 G S F 82 2 N S F 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 9 Un i t P l a n - 2 B e d r o o m + 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 10 Ty p i c a l U n i t R C P - 2 B e d r o o m + Sl i d i n g G l a s s D o o r a t 1 s t F l o o r wh e r e P a t i o O c c u r s i n P l a n Sl i d i n g G l a s s D o o r a t 1 s t F l o o r wh e r e P a t i o O c c u r s i n P l a n Sl i d i n g G l a s s D o o r a t 1 s t F l o o r wh e r e P a t i o O c c u r s i n P l a n Sliding Glass Door at 1st Floor where Patio Occurs in Plan Ba t h r o o m Ki t c h e n e t t e Ba t h r o o m Be d r o o m 11 ' - 6 " x 1 1 ' Li v i n g A r e a 30 ' - 1 0 " x 1 1 ' - 0 " Be d r o o m 10 ' x 1 3 ' - 6 " W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e (N ) M o n u m e n t S i g n M a i n E n t r y D r i v e w a y 9 ' - 0 " 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Si g n a g e P l a n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Em e r a l d C o u r t 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 7 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ’ - 6 ” 4 ’ - 6 ” 5 W W D W DD DN D D WW W W 143 SFMed49 SFSto.187 SFCaregiver 70 SFM/E 7'-5 1/4"15'-2 1/4"9'-5 1/4"9'-11 1/4"4'-11 3/4"18'-4" 25 4 S F La u n d r y 105 SFSto. 12 7 S F M/ E Fo l d i n g C o u n t e r 1 1 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 11 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 11'-0 3/4" 47 0 S F Be a u t y 22 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 2 9 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 14 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 3 5 / 8 " M a n g l e r Fo l d i n g C o u n t e r Cle a n L i n e n So i l e d L i n e n D r y e r s Wa s h e r s 16 1 7 S F Di n i n g R o o m 12 8 6 S F We l l n e s s 13 6 0 S F Bi s t r o 15 7 S F Be v e r a g e s 84 S F St o r a g e 36 5 S F St a f f L o u n g e 37 5 S F Ma i n L a u n d r y 23 4 S F Pa t i o (E ) R e s t r o o m N. I . S . (E ) R e s t r o o m N. I . S . (E ) R e r f i g e r a t o r N. I . S . (E ) F r e e z e r N. I . S . (E ) S t o r a g e N. I . S . 1 7 ' - 1 0 7 / 1 6 " 1 4 ' - 7 1 / 8 " 25 ' - 0 1 / 4 " 2 8 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 2 9 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 44 ' - 4 3 / 8 " 10 ' - 0 1 / 8 " 39 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 3 8 ' - 8 1 / 8 " 36 1 S F Wa l k e r St o r a g e Ma i n E l e c t r i c a l Ro o m Wo m e n Me n 43 8 S F Fa m i l y R o o m 92 4 S F Ac t i v i t y R o o m 99 3 S F Li v i n g R o o m 318 SFDiscoveryLobby 170 SFOffice 200 SFReception 174 SFAL Director 102 SFWorkroomM/E Lo g g i a Drop-Off Main Entry 20 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 40 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 40 ' - 3 " 2 4 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 12 ' - 0 5 / 8 " 22 ' - 1 1 3 / 4 " 2 1 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 24' - 11 3/4"12' - 9"13' - 7"13' - 11 1/4"12' - 5 3/4"11' - 11 1/4" 2H R S e p a r a t i o n 2H R S e p a r a t i o n CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P 1/8" = 1'-0" Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Enlarged Floor Plans A6.021731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801 1/8" = 1'-0"2 Caregiver Station 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 La u n d r y R o o m 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 Be a u t y 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ma i n C o m m o n s CLIENT KSL Anaheim II LP 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 (760)804-5900 ARCHITECT ShelterLLP PO Box 2319 Pasadena, CA 91102 (213)290-3220 CIVIL ENGINEER Fuscoe Engineering, Inc.16795 Von Karman, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 (949)474-1960 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SQLA 380 N. Palm Street, Suite B Brea, CA 92821 (562)905-0800 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER KPFF 221 Main Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 (415)989-1004 MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING ENGINEER Southwest Group Engineering Consultants, Inc.9201 Research Drive Irvine, CA 92618 (949)387-8989 Project #:Date:Scale: C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 5 S h e l t e r L L P A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d - T h e s e P l a n s a n d / o r S p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e f o r t h e s o l e b e n e f i t o f S h e l t e r L L P ' s c l i e n t , a n d m a y n o t b e u s e d , r e u s e d , c o p i e d , o r r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f S h e l t e r L L P Emerald Court Expansion Project Number April 7, 2015Site Photos G1.001731 W Medical Center Drive Anaheim, California 92801Emerald Court Main Entry Driveway Project Location at Left Em e r a l d C o u r t Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n f r o m W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e Em e r a l d C o u r t S e c o n d a r y E n t r y D r i v e w a y Pr o j e c t L o c a t i o n a t R i g h t Em e r a l d C o u r t Ex i s t i n g P o r t e - C o c h e r e Emerald Court Existing Building at end of Main Entry Driveway Em e r a l d C o u r t Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g Medical Lab Building South West from Project Location Me d i c a l O f ﬁ c e s ac r o s s W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e f r o m P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n Me d i c a l O f ﬁ c e s ac r o s s W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e f r o m P r o j e c t L o c a t i o n We s t e r n E d g e o f E m e r a l d C o u r t P r o p e r t y sh o w i n g P e r i m e t e r W a l l o f N e i g h b o r i n g M o b i l e H o m e C o m m u n i t y Toyota Sales Center East of Project Location at left Ap a r t m e n t B u i l d i n g fu r t h e r W e s t a l o n g W M e d i c a l C e n t e r D r i v e ATTACHMENT NO. 7 From:Elaine Thienprasiddhi To:Ted White; Elly Morris Subject:FW: Kisco Senior Living/Emerald Court expansion Date:Monday, August 10, 2015 11:19:28 AM Importance:High Here is the full thread to be sent to the Commissioners. Elaine Begin forwarded message: From: Sean Deyo <seandeyo@gmail.com> Date: August 10, 2015 at 7:05:26 AM PDTTo: Elaine Thienprasiddhi <eayambao@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Kisco Senior Living/Emerald Court expansion Good morning, Elaine! Let me begin by saying that I was pleasantly surprised to actually receive a reply to my email. That is not intended to be a jab at you, I just figured that the emails would be compiled and presented to - then read by- the Planning Commission and then the Commission would go from there. With that being said, thank you for taking the time to respond to my concerns! I do not know when I would be able to take your call today, due to my crazy schedule (as I am sure that you can relate to). The additional parking that will be provided on site is a nice option, but I really don't think that that would be enough to accommodate the increase of traffic/parking on the surrounding streets. I may be wrong... I'm not an engineer (or even close), it's just a gut feeling I have having lived on Coronet for over 12 years. There are the residents of Emerald Court that take walks along Medical Center Drive; residents from Anaheim Shores do the same. We have people that already cross Medical Center Drive in unmarked areas that cause drivers to hit the brakes or swerve to avoid them (same on Romneya)... Add those situations to an increase in the flow of traffic on these streets and it looks like a recipe for disaster. What about election time? Every election, Emerald Court is used as a polling location for this neighborhood. It can be very difficult to maneuver on Medical Center Drive as well as on Emerald Court's property on election days. Granted, the elections do not occur every NEW CORRESPONDENCE ITEM NO. 4 day, let alone every year, but I worry that this could turn deadly. Regarding the notification to the neighborhood, I do not doubt that the City mailed the notices in a properly manner to all of the surrounding residents, but rather I truly believe that the notices were just not delivered... at least to Anaheim Shores. Quite a few other residents here have had issues with missing mail. Not necessarily with bills or checks or anything of that nature, but rather 'non-priority' mail. A handful of residents will receive the weekly flyers on (say) Wednesday, but other residents may not receive them until Friday... if even at all. Same can be said for magazines, periodicals, 'junk mail,' and other items as well. This situation is being addressed with our local post office. So, now that I have talked your ears off, please know that I am grateful to you for letting me say my piece. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day! Sincerely, Sean Deyo 714-718-7090 On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 10:13 PM, Elaine Thienprasiddhi <eayambao@gmail.com> wrote: Mr. Deyo, Thank you very much for your email. I will be sure that the Planning Commissioners receive a copy of your email prior to the public hearing. I wanted to get back to you tonight to address some of the issues mentioned in your email since I am in meetings all morning tomorrow. I will look into the mailing list that was used to send out public notices for tomorrow’s public hearing. I am not aware of any proposal from nine years ago to expand Emerald Court, but will double check City records. As part of the public hearing tomorrow, the Planning Commission would consider the project, including the environmental determination. The agenda and staff report for the proposed project can be viewed at the links below. Here is a link to the Planning Commission Agenda for August 10. The project is Item No. 4: http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/ag_3vers/Planning.pdf Here is a direct link to the staff report and attachments: http://www.anaheim.net/departmentfolders/planning/PC/Item4.pdf I understand your concerns regarding the parking along Medical Center Drive, as I observed most of the street parked with cars upon my visits to the site. As part of the proposed project, additional parking spaces would be installed on-site and the parking that is currently gated would be opened up to guests and staff since the majority of the residents do not maintain a car on-site. Also, the number of on-site parking spaces to be provided exceeds the peak parking demand of the proposed facility. In other words, the proposed project would not create a demand for use of the street parking on Medical Center Drive. I will follow up with you tomorrow afternoon at the number you included in your email. Please let me know if you prefer that I contact you by some other means. Thank you, Elaine 714.765.4568 On Aug 9, 2015, at 1:54 PM, Sean Deyo <seandeyo@gmail.com> wrote: Good morning! My name is Sean Deyo and I live at 1919 W. Coronet Ave, in the mobile home park (Anaheim Shores) next to Emerald Court. Last week, I was handed a letter from one of my neighbors regarding the proposed Emerald Court expansion. I was very surprised by this letter because I had never received a letter about this subject. Since then, I have asked almost one hundred other residents of Anaheim Shores (which has over 260 homes) about this letter and I could not find anyone that received this notification. I even checked with the Management that lives ON-SITE. They did not receive this notice in their personal mailbox nor in their business (Management Office) mailbox. If I understand the letter correctly (and please correct me if I am wrong), the Planning Commission is moving forward with allowing the Emerald Court expansion because of a lack of impact on an Environmental Report. If this is the case, then I am a little confused. The owners of Emerald Court tried to expand the amount of residences on this same parcel approximately nine years ago. At that time, it was determined that the surrounding area could NOT handle the additional traffic and parking needs required for such a project. And that was BEFORE the Toyota dealership had expanded... twice. (I'm not sure, but that lot may have just been an abandoned retail store at the time.) The Toyota dealership also requires their potential customers to park on Medical Center Drive The Toyota dealership also requires their own large, multi-vehicle delivery trucks to park on Medical Center Drive in order to make their deliveries of new vehicles. This was BEFORE the additional classes had been added to North Orange County Community College (which requires a healthy portion of their students to find parking on Coronet Ave, Romneya Drive., and Medical Center Drive... right in front of Emerald Court). And this was BEFORE many more drivers learned of using those same three roads as shortcuts between Euclid and Brookhurst (because of the expansion work on the 91 Freeway), as well as a shortcut from Euclid to La Palma Avenue (via Medical Center Drive or Coronet Avenue). If the proposed expansion back then could not pass an Environmental Impact Report, why can it pass now... after so much growth and impact problems now? Personally, I am against the Emerald Court expansion because I feel that this area can NOT coexist safely with the massive influx of pedestrians, auto traffic, and commercial traffic (not to mention construction traffic) that this expansion will bring to our neighborhood... now more so than ever. I also feel that not enough residents/neighbors/businesses in the immediate area were alerted to this proposed expansion... especially when you realize that the Anaheim Shores Management Office didn't receive a notice. The lack of notification to everyone that is in Emerald Court's surrounding area (especially the residents whose properties are directly against the Emerald Court/Anaheim Shores shared property line) really doesn't allow the for a fair assessment of impact to this Anaheim neighborhood. I am asking that the plans for expanding Emerald Court be placed on hold until a complete delivery of proper notification can be made to all of the residents of Anaheim Shores and to Emerald Courts surrounding neighbors. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Sean Deyo 1919 W. Coronet Ave. Space #157 Anaheim, CA 92801 714-718-7090