Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1c: Resolution 6562: Expansion of Westfield Santa Anita Phase 1B to Increase Restaurant Space and Resolution 6805: Design Review Amendment ■ �4 Fro� ,dr AuyuuU,I/Wf °nity°t'L° STAFF REPORT Development Services Department December 6, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director,. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administratorll= By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner ger SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-026 AND RESOLUTION 6562 REGARDING THE PHASE 1 b EXPANSION (THE PROMENADE) OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL AT 400 S. BALDWIN AVENUE TO INCREASE THE RESTAURANT SPACE FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 6805 SUMMARY On August 8, 2011, the City received a request from Westfield, LLC to amend condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 (attached) for the approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026 for the Phase 1 b expansion (The Promenade) of the Westfield Santa Anita mall. The requested amendment is to increase the amount of restaurant space in The Promenade from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. This includes outdoor dining space. The requested change will not increase the total square footage approved for The Promenade. On November 22, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment, and found the amendment acceptable. There was no opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 4-0 (one Commissioner was recused) recommending approval of the requested amendment to condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 and the Addendum to the Final EIR. BACKGROUND In 2007, the City Council approved The Promenade expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita mall for the addition of 97,366 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet of restaurant space. The Promenade is at the southwest quadrant of the mall to the south of Nordstrom and west of Macy's — see the attached site plan. According to Westfield, the primary objective of The Promenade is to provide a community and pedestrian-oriented shopping area by expanding the overall specialty retail aspects of the shopping center. The Promenade consists of five retail buildings situated around an open-air, landscaped promenade, and is directly above a two-level parking structure. One parking level is at grade and the second level is subterranean. This new parking structure added 783 parking spaces for a total on-site parking supply of 6,204 spaces. Additionally, a semi-circular turnout is provided on the west side of The Promenade to facilitate the drop-off and pick-up of shopping center patrons, and for valet parking service. A floor plan of The Promenade is attached. On July 21, 2009, the City Council approved a similar request to increase the amount of restaurant space in The Promenade from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. However, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Associates sued the City and Westfield, alleging inadequate environmental review. Subsequently, Westfield withdrew the request. DISCUSSION The Promenade expansion was approved with a condition that limits restaurant uses to a total of 10,000 square feet. This condition was based on Westfield's proposed mix of commercial uses. Due to the current economic climate, Westfield is requesting an amendment to the condition to increase the maximum restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet to enhance the activities at The Promenade. The additional 20,000 square feet of restaurant space will be in place of 20,000 square feet of existing retail space. Therefore, the 107,366 square-foot total of The Promenade will not change. There are no specific restaurant tenants for this space at this time, but the attached floor plan of The Promenade shows possible locations. To determine whether, or not, the requested amendment would have any traffic and/or parking impacts, Westfield retained the services of Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. Their attached report updates the traffic and parking situation at and around the Westfield Santa Anita mall and reassesses the affects of The Promenade and the requested amendment. Parking The Westfield Santa Anita mall with The Promenade has an on-site parking supply of 6,204 spaces based on a ratio of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. When The Promenade was approved, it was determined that the Westfield Santa Anita mall needed a total on-site parking supply of 5,908 spaces. Therefore, with the new parking structure that is beneath The Promenade, the Westfield Santa Anita mall has a parking surplus of 296 spaces. It should be noted that the parking assessment also analyzed parking demand, which is different from the parking requirement of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The parking demand assessment analyzed how much parking would Amendment to The Promenade ADR 2005-026 & Reso. 6562 December 6, 2011 — Page 2 be needed at particular times, and determined that the only times when the parking demand would exceed the on-site supply of 6,204 parking spaces is on weekends during the holiday shopping season. The parking study shows that the Westfield Santa Anita mall generates a demand for 6,825 spaces on a Saturday in December prior to the Christmas holiday. This demand exceeds the on-site supply by 621 spaces. However, Westfield provides an off-site employee parking plan at the adjacent Santa Anita Park racetrack property for the holiday season. This parking plan is a project requirement for The Promenade expansion. Westfield's current agreement with Santa Anita Park is to lease approximately 1,000 parking spaces this holiday season. The reassessment of the parking impacts for the requested amendment finds that this mitigation measure is still applicable and adequate. Traffic The attached report by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. compared the traffic conditions of the surrounding street systems from the time The Promenade was approved to the current traffic situations, and determined that the requested amendment would not cause any significant impacts. The traffic counts were adjusted upward based on the traffic growth that has occurred since The Promenade was approved and for traffic that could be generated if the former Robinsons-May building were occupied. The determination is that the requested additional restaurant space would not change the trip generation of The Promenade and that there will not be any significant impacts at the surrounding intersections. The City Engineer has reviewed the report and agrees with the conclusions. The Development Services Department agrees with Westfield that an increase in the amount of restaurant space in The Promenade will enhance the activities at The Promenade and at the mall in general. Staff also agrees with the conclusions of the parking and traffic report by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. The requested amendment will not result in any new parking or traffic impacts. Utilities and Service Systems Staff determined through an Initial Study (attached) that the requested amendment would not change the estimated needs for water use, wastewater capacity, and solid waste removal since it would not alter or exceed the estimated capacities and/or demands analyzed for the approval of The Promenade. Code Requirements All City code requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, Police Chief, and Public Works Services Director. Amendment to The Promenade ADR 2005-026 & Reso. 6562 December 6, 2011 —Page 3 The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the requested amendment to Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026, and recommends that condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 be revised to read as follows: Restaurant uses within Phase 1 b shall be limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which includes outdoor dining. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.: "CEQA") provides that when an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence that: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require major revision to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance shows that the project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, or that significant effects previously examined would be substantially more severe, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but the City Council declined to adopt them, or mitigation measures or alternatives that are different from those included in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the City Council declined to adopt them. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; State CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) On October 3, 2000, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center by 600,000 square feet of gross leasable area [State Clearinghouse # 1999121063] (the "Project"). The Final EIR fully analyzed all impacts of the Project. After completing construction of Phase Ia of the Project, Westfield, LLC submitted applications for the second phase of development. In conjunction with that application, in 2007, the City prepared and approved an Addendum to the Final EIR ("Addendum") to evaluate the environmental consequences of building out Phase lb and Phase 2 of the Project. According to the Addendum, the implementation of Amendment to The Promenade ADR 2005-026 & Reso. 6562 December 6, 2011 — Page 4 Phase 1 b and Phase 2 of the Project would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR. As more fully documented in the Initial Study, the City's approval of the modification of condition no. 9 to City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Phase 1 b would not result in new significant impacts or more severe environmental impacts compared to the impacts previously disclosed and evaluated in the Final EIR and Addendum. All of the environmental impacts that would result from the proposed modification of condition no. 9 have been previously evaluated and fully mitigated, to the extent feasible, in the Final EIR and the Addendum. The proposed modification would not result in any new or more significant impacts. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required for the City's approval (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; State CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) All necessary CEQA findings are set forth in the attached Resolution. On November 22, 2011, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council make the necessary CEQA findings set forth in the attached Resolution and approve the Addendum to the Final EIR. FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6805 approving Architectural Design Review No. 2005-026 and Resolution 6562 regarding the Phase 1 b Expansion (The Promenade) of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Approved by: `111 Don Penman, City Manager Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 6805 City Council Resolution No. 6562 Report by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. CEQA Document— Initial Study Site Plan and Floor Plan Amendment to The Promenade ADR 2005-026 & Reso. 6562 December 6, 2011 — Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 6805 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005-026 AND RESOLUTION 6562 REGARDING THE PHASE 1B EXPANSION (THE PROMENADE) OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL AT 400 S. BALDWIN AVENUE TO INCREASE THE RESTAURANT SPACE FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET. WHEREAS, In 2005 Westfield, LLC (as successor-in-interest to Westfield Corporation, Inc.) submitted plans for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026 for approximately 100,800 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of retail shops, including 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and the development of additional parking at the Westfield Santa Anita Mall (the "Mall"), more commonly known as "Phase lb" (The Promenade); and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6562 conditionally approving ADR 2005-026 for the expansion of the Mall, more commonly known as "Phase 1 b", subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services Department; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the expansion of up to 600,000 square feet to the Westfield Santa Anita Mall, and the EIR was certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000; and WHEREAS, in January 2007, an EIR Addendum (the "EIR Addendum) was prepared for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026, and the City Council independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and approved City Council Resolution Nos. 6561 and 6562; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 2011, the City received a request from Westfield, LLC (as successor-in-interest to Westfield Corporation, Inc.) to amend Condition No. 9 (the "Amendment") of Resolution No. 6562 (ADR 2005-026 of the Phase 1 b approval, to increase the approved restaurant space of 10,000 square feet up to 30,000 square feet; the Amendment includes outdoor dining and could reduce the retail use from 107,366 square feet to 77,366 square feet (if all of the additional 20,000 square feet were used for restaurant space), but the overall 100,800 square feet of Phase 1 b previously approved by the City Council would not change; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Amendment was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (one Commissioner was recused) to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Amendment and to approve the Addendum to the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: -2- 6805 SECTION 1. Based on the information in the staff report and all evidence in the record, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or any other CEQA document is not required because the modification of condition no. 9 to Resolution No. 6562: 1. Does not constitute a substantial change to the Project that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Does not constitute a substantial change with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is administered that will require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects; and 3. Does not involve new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Final EIR was certified or the Addendum was approved, that shows any of the following: (a) the modification will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the Final EIR and the Addendum; (b) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR and the Addendum; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the City Council declined to adopt such measures; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but which the City Council declined to adopt. SECTION 2. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended by amending Condition No. 9 to read as follows: CONDITION NO. 9 Restaurant uses within Phase 1 b shall be limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which includes outdoor dining. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. -3- 6805 Passed, approved and adopted this 6 day of December, 2011. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: g-tq , 3`eitTQ-44 Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -4- 6805 RESOLUTION NO. 6562 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF ARCADIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DES CITY REVIEW ADR 2005-026 FOR THE EXPANSION'OF IHE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — THE (PHASE 1b) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. AhIITA WHEREAS, in 2005 Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted plans for architectural design review ("ADR 2005-026") for an approximately 100,800 square foot retail expansion and a subterranean two-sto to accommodate 783 vehicles ry parking structure at the Wes�eld Shoppingtoyvn_Santa Anita, more commonly.known as "Phase 1 b"; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007 the Planning reviewed ADR 2005-026 and the Planning Wing Commission anning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the architectu subject to the conditions ral design therein, recommended by the Development Services Department. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report is true and correct. 1 6562 • SECTION 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the location, configuration and architectural design and the proposed materials and colors of the proposed expansion and parking structure of ADR 2005-026 are visually harmonious with the existing mall buildings and with the site; 2. That the design for the proposed expansion will enhance the existing mall and create a positive physical image and environment; 3. That the height, massing and configuration of the expansion are in scale with the existing mall; 4. That an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the expansion of up to an additional 600,000 square feet to the Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita Mall. The EIR was certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000; 5. That an EIR Addendum was prepared for ADR 2005-026 in January 2007 and approved under Resolution No. 6561 concurrent herewith; and 6. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (collectively referred to herein as the Project's "CEQA Documentation"), the 2 6562 Administrative Record, the Staff Report (which includes recommended findings), and the draft resolutions for final action on ADR 2005-026. SECTIN 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the proposed architectural design review (ADR 200 5-026)5 026) subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS The terms "developer", "applicant", "owner", and "Westfield"stfield shall be deemed to refer to the applicant for approval of ADR-026 and all successors in interest. 1. No building permit for any construction on the Property unless all of the conditions hereof have °peg' shall be ave been complied with or assurances satisfactory to the Development Services Director have been made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of o first retail building, the Develo per shall occupancy for the provide (a) proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation g n measure established for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) or (b) evidence of a completion bond in an amount and form and with a surety approved by the Development Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; Services e improvement; provided, however, that if 3 6562 within two years after issuance of a building permit for Phase lb, Caltrans fails to issue a permit for the improvement, the City may direct the Applicant to contribute the then current cost of the improvement into a City fund for alternative transportation mitigation improvements in the City's sole and absolute discretion, which payment shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any and all other mitigation measures. In this event, this condition shall be deemed satisfied upon payment of the improvement costs into the City fund. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the developer shall pay to the County the cost for the construction of the northbound right turn lane in-lieu of construction for the intersection of Huntington Dr. at Rosemead Blvd. (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.c). The County will incorporate the improvement into their project to widen the intersection. 4. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building for Phase 1 b, the developer shall pay to the City: a. A Transportation Impact fee based on the adopted program for Phase 1 b; and b. The outstanding payment, previously required but not paid, for Phase la's ufair share" of area-wide traffic improvements 4 6562 identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan on a pro-rata "fair share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). A nexus study to determine "fair share" responsibility for Phase la shall be prepared b P by a consultant approved by the City and paid for by the project applicant. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for building for Phase lb, a $50,000 bond or 0 the first retail other security as approved by the City Attorney shall be placed in escrow with the City to be used to monitor and address any neighborhood cut through traffic that results from the proposed project. 6. Any use of the Property which is otherwise subject to the Conditional Use Permit provisions of the City's tY Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Buildin Are shown on the Zoning/Deli n � g Area C [mall area] as ove g rlay site plan submitted with the 2000 ElR. 7. Phase lb shall be an open-air project with o e landscaping as indicated on Sh P n courtyards and eefi 14 of the Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006. 8. Materials utilized in Phase 1 b for the buildings and parking structure shall be of the materials palette included in the Sheet 15 of the 5 6562 Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006 and as indicated in all elevations and sections (Sheets 9 through 13). 9. Restaurant uses within Phase lb shall be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA). 10. All signs shall be subject to the Municipal Code, except that the following shall be applicable: a. No new freestanding center identification signs or multi- tenant monument signs are permitted for Phase 1 b. Single-sided monument signs shall be only allowed for restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more and that have public entrances from the exterior of the shopping mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open-air mall area and located within planter areas. The total square footage of each sign shall not exceed 36 square feet. b. Flat, Plexiglas illuminated signs and internally illuminated plastic-faced cabinet signs are prohibited. (Resolution No. 6245) c. Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more, theaters/cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall 6 6562 comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to 9 allowable square footage. Tenant signs facing on the open-air courtyard not exposed to the public rtYard area P c shall be excluded from this provision. d. All new signage shall be subject to further design sign review and approval by the Development Services Director through the Sign Design Review process. 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance plans included on Sheet 14 mpliance with the of the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006, shall be prepared by a registered g tered landscape architect and shall be submitted to and approved by the Y Development Services Director before any building permit is issued for addition to substantial co any part of the project. In nformance with the conceptual plan submitted as Sheet 14, said plans shall include or be in conformance with the following, without limitation: a. In addition to the landscaping required in Section three ection 11 3 t ) percent of the parking areas shall be landscaped planting beds and trees shall be distributed ped and ed evenly throughout the entire parking area adjacent to Phase lb from the new buildings to the existing berms along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. 7 6562 Landscaping shall not be concentrated in only one (1) portion of the parking area, but dispersed throughout the parking lot. No planting area or island shall have an average width of less than three (3) feet. The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must be drawn to scale and the plants shall be clearly designated and labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall surround all planting areas or islands. The required landscaped buffer areas adjacent to Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue as well as the redesigned landscaping at the southerly entrance of Baldwin Avenue shall not be considered as part of the three (3) percent "landscaping" of the parking areas. Where a parking area abuts the buildings on the Property, the border plantings adjacent to those buildings shall not be considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas. b. The solid exterior walls of the mall and in the courtyard areas shall include decorative landscaping and treatment as shown on the submitted elevations in the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006 and subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. c. To facilitate the processing of landscaping plans, a plant list shall be prepared giving the botanical and common names of the 8 6562 plants to be used, the sizes to be planted e. ( 9. 1, 5 or 15 gallon containers) and quantity of each. The plants should be listed alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in locating the plants on the plan. d. All new landscape materials shall be of a size and quality in scale with the project. All new trees shall be a minimum of 36" box. All new shrubs shall be a minimum five (5) gallon in size. 12. The owner of the Property shall provide adequate for the protection and control of equate security persons and property on the site. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved b Police Chief prior to the Y the City of Arcadia e issuance of the first building permit for all new buildings on the Property (including the parkin structure).cture). The owner of the property shall at all times adhere to the approved security modifications of the security urrty plan. Any ecurrty plan shall require the approval of the Police Chief, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13. Final plans for the proposed parking structure layout shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer ri p or to the issuance of the first building permit for the parking structure and shall address the issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisle Y widths and turning movements into and out of the circulation ramps for standard passenger 9 6562 cars. 14. Interior lighting for the parking structure and all new exterior lighting shall be included on the final plans for review and approval by the Police Chief. Exterior lighting other than safety and/or security lighting shall only be in operation until one hour after operating hours to the extent feasible. 15. There shall be a maximum of three (3) Pavilions (Kiosks) located in the open plaza areas of the project. The final design shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director or his/her designee based on the following criteria: a. Kiosks and cart designs may be animated in nature and shall serve to accentuate the architectural and aesthetic finish of the building facades. b. Individual kiosks may vary in total area; however, no one (1) kiosk shall exceed 150 square feet in area as shown on the submitted plans. c. Kiosks and carts shall be designed to be weatherproof and shall have illumination integrated into the design. d. The uses permitted with the kiosks and carts shall be consistent with Section 2 of Paragraph 16 of Resolution No. 6199 10 6562 dated October 3, 2000. e. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks, and between kiosks and portable carts, of 15'-0" or as required by the State Building Code. Kiosks and portable carts shall be harmonious in design. 16. Any floor area within the open common area (s) devoted to portable carts (not kiosks) shall not be subject to the City's s Zoning Ordinance for providing off-street parking spaces. 17. Westfield LLC shall continuously maintain a list of all current operators of kiosks and portable carts throughout the mall for b licensin p usiness g pur oses. This list shall promptly be furnished to the City Services Department upon request. y 18. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the City Engineer shall review and approve all striping, signage, traffic control plans and on-site vehicular and pedestrian ' circulafifon. 19. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, the intersection of the Gate 8 Racetrack access road and the Westfield Mall ring road shall be reconstructed to an alignment in substantial conformance with the alignment depicted on Sheet 3 of the Architectural Design Review package with no reduction in the number of 11 6562 lanes exiting onto Baldwin Avenue. The final alignment shall be reviewed and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 20. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, ramp access and ADA clearance shall be upgraded or constructed at the intersections of Gate 9 & 10 (the two southernmost entrances to the Westfield Santa Anita mall from Baldwin Avenue). 21. The following conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director: a. The City of Arcadia shall transfer ownership, and Westfield shall accept ownership, of the 12-inch water main that currently circles the existing mall to Westfield. All modifications made to the existing water distribution main, fire hydrant assemblies, and fire service connections shall be made according to existing City of Arcadia Public Works Standards. b. Water service for Westfield shall be metered at two locations where existing pipeline enters Westfield — at the northwest corner of the property near the Gate 8 entrance to the racetrack and the southwest corner of the property east of Fire Station 106. The City's Public Works Services Department (PWSD) will provide and install two fully equipped metering vaults and two backflow 12 6562 preventers. PVVSD will provide full future maintenance of vaults, Westfield shall provide fu ture maintenance metering tenance of the backflow preventers under PWSD inspection, at the cost and expense of Westfield. C. The maintenance, repair and relocation of the existing sting water main, and the installation of any fire hydrants required shall be entirely undertaken by Westfield and at the expense of Westfield. d. New fire sprinkler systems shall be installed as required by the Arcadia Fire Department by Westfield Westfield partment. Backflow preventers on the fire sprinkler systems shall be double check detector assemblies. Backflow preventers on any proposed irrigation system shall be installed by Westfield as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code. e. Inspection of the water main relocation and new water mains, water services, fire services and Irrigation services shall be done by the City's Public Works Inspector. 22. The applicant shall submit to the Qe Director for his/her a r velopment Services pp oval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building an on-site vehicular access and circulation plan that proposes, at the easterly perimeter of the subject property, direct vehicular and pedestrian connections between the Westfield Santa Anita 13 6562 Mall and the Santa Anita Racetrack property. The location of the pedestrian access shall be as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the Design Review Submittal dated November 15, 2006. The vehicular connection shall be located along the easterly perimeter of the Westfield property in the general location of the existing aisle way that runs perpendicular to the southerly portion of the ring road (existing three-legged intersection controlled by a stop sign). The final location for the vehicular connection shall be determined by the Development Services Director. The applicant shall complete all improvements in accordance with City approved plans. 23. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the applicant shall execute a reciprocal access agreement with the adjacent property owner to the east for a common vehicular connection and a common pedestrian connection at locations approved by the Development Services Director. 24. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the developer shall submit a bond in a form and amount and issued by a surety approved by the City Attorney for the roadway, sidewalk and other improvements on the Westfield property necessary to construct the vehicular and pedestrian connections between the two adjacent properties. 14 6562 25. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit building, the following conditions p for fihe first retail 9 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief: a. Access to and around structures during construction be maintained. A plan shall be submitted shall ubmitted outlining all emergency access routes during and after construction. In addition, a detailed excavation plan shall be submitted and subject to approval p of, but not limited to, emergency access and water supply. b. An emergency egress plan shall be submitted for affected portions of the existing Mall during and after construction. 26. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of first retail building, Occupancy for the 9 following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief: a. The basement parking level shall be provided with a smoke removal system for underground firefighting operations. 9 p rations. b. The parking structure entrance height shall be designed for access by paramedic ambulances, as determined and approved by the Fire Chief. c. All new retail space and the parking structure shall interconnected to the existing fire alarm panel. be 15 6562 d. All existing fire hydrants and fire department connections in the expansion area shall be relocated to locations approved by the Fire Chief. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided as required by the Fire Chief. e. On-site Class I standpipes shall be required at approved locations as required by the Fire Chief. f. The dumpster location within the parking structure shall have an adequate clear perimeter space for firefighting operations and dumpster removal. In addition, the dumpster location shall have adequate ventilation for firefighting operations. g. All elevators, including service elevators, shall be provided with the length, width and weight capacities. h. An acceptable method of radio communication within both the existing Mall and expansion areas shall be provided and approved by the Fire and Police Chiefs. i. Pre-Fire Plans, in a format approved by the Fire Chief, shall be prepared for the entire Mall, including without limitation the new expansion, outlining the hydrant locations, fire department connections, standpipes, fire alarm panels, smoke evacuation fans, and other points of interest as required. 16 6562 J. Prefixed ladders shall be placed at locations approved PP by the Fire Chief on the parapet walls that lead down to the roof. These ladders shall be capable of supporting a 500-pound live load. An agreed upon exterior marking on the structure shall be rovided P on the exterior of the building and visible, designating these se rnterror parapet ladder locations. k. The drop-off-area access at the front of the expansion p stop shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide a minimum weight capacity of 70,000 pounds apparatus access. I. Knox boxes shall be provided for access to any restricted Y sfrrcted areas, including exterior entrances and individual units. m. Westfield's existing public address system shall be connected to the expansion areas. n. Standby power must be supplied for emergenc lighting and the public address system. y g g 27. A Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager liaison between the Police shall act as a Department, Fire Department, Development Services Department, Public Works Services Department, and all tenant contractors throughout the duration of the construction 1ro' will be established for all C' P ect. A location City inspectors and other contractors to l7 6562 coordinate inspections and meet with the Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager. The location shall be provided on plans submitted for building permit. 28. No amplified live entertainment shall be permitted in the outdoor areas of the Mall. 29. The project and the site shall be developed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title 24) including direct connectivity with the adjacent right-of-ways, i.e., Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. 30. The developer shall defend (with legal counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, and/or proceedings against the City and/or its agents, officials, officers, and/or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul (i) this ADR approval, or (ii) the certification of the EIR Addendum in conjunction with this ADR approval, or (iii) any decision, action or failure to act by the City with respect to this ADR application. 31. The City must promptly notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate reasonably in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate reasonably in the defense, the developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, 18 6562 indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 32. The developer shall reimburse the City for any fees which the City Y court and Y rna y be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this approval and/or CEQA related action. Although the developer is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at is sole discretion, participate in th the action, but such partici ation the defense of P shalt not relieve the developer of any obligation under this condition. 33. The applicant shall provide staffing to monitor the pick-up and drop-off area on the west side of the Mall for the first 30 days following the opening of Phase lb or through January 15 if the first thi the month of December, rtY days falls within At the conclusion of the staffing period, the applicant shall have an additional ninety 90 ( ) days to make any modifications to the operation of the pick-up and drop- deem necessary to ensure t °p off area as they here are no queuing or traffic conflicts. At the conclusion of this ninety (90)-day period, the D Director shall review the r evelopment Services P oposed operations plan for the pick-up and drop- off area as recommended by the applicant. The applicant shall incorporate and continuously implement any and all modificatio plan as deemed necessa b ns to the operations rY y the Development Services Director. 19 6562 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1ST day of May. >!. r �t K Mayor of the Ci y of rcadia ATTEST: ity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM P. 46,0k4 Stephen Deitsch City Attorney 20 6562 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Y Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6562 was as p sed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by th to by the City Clerk at a re y the Mayor and attested gular meeting of said Council held on the 1 st day May, 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following Y llowing vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Amundson, Chandler, Harbi cht, Wuo and Segal NOES: None ABSENT: None Air ANL_ ity Clerk of the City o A rcadia 21 6562 fir JLb , Q1, r i i -,, : 1 , : 1 transportation ' P on consulting,inc. OCT .1 1 2011 Pletilidng MEMORANDUM Services �; City of Arcadia Jason Kruckeberg, City of Arcadia t4 COPY: John Healy, Westfield LLC FROM: Patrick Gibson, P.E. !`° Richard Gibson DATE: October 3, 2011 RE: Traffic and Parking Implications of Land Use Ch `, The Promenade (Phase 1 B) Changes to Westfield Santa Anita Arcadia, California ',. Ref: J 1008 .:'"' INTRODUCTION t„ 1. Gibson Transportation Consulting,g, Inc. (GTC) was asked to conduct an assessment of the impact on both traffic and parking as a result of the proposed change t condition for The Promenade (Phase 1B) project. Wesel is the condition of approval for The Promenade (Phase 9 to the ollowable restaurant d is stoning a modification to one to increase the allowable restaurant space in Phase 1 B b 1 1 by expansion at square Set (sf) to restaurant than was analyzed in the July 2007 Certified Addendum Report d to to the square feet al Impact p (EIR)for the project. This proposed change would not increase o the Environmental Impact v. approved for Phase 1B because there would be an equal reduction the total square footage uses (i.e., up to 20,000 sf of space previously slated for retail equal amount to of restaurant of ape , in square footage a in retail • ) uses would be replaced with an EXISTING CONDITIONS The current center contains 1,469,539 sf of gross leasable area (GLA)1. is currently permitted up to 10,000 sf of restaurant development although only approximately 9,000 sf exists today or is under construction. The Promenade area ' This analysis will use 1,469,539 sf of GLA in order to be c the EIR. The actual square footage of the existing mall is 1,468,122 sf GLA so is conservative in that it tests a square footage slight) larger r than the actual mall.he analysis in this memo 523 W. 6th Street, Suite 1234 Los Angeles, CA 90014 p.213.683.0088 f. 213.683.0033 Mr.Jason Kruckeberg October 3, 2011 Page 2 The 2007 Promenade approval represented an addition of 115,000 sf GLA in the following land uses: • 105,000 sf GLA of retail space • Up to 10,000 sf GLA of restaurant space PROPOSED MODIFICATION The proposed modification to Phase 1 B includes a shift of up to 20,000 sf GLA from existing retail space to restaurant space. With the modified restaurant condition, the site would include the following land uses: e 1,273,886 sf GLA of retail space • 121,715 sf GLA for Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant • 3,014 seat Cineplex (73,938 sf GLA) Thus, Phase 1B with the modified restaurant condition would total 115,000 sf GLA as follows: F 85,000 sf GLA of retail space • Up to 30,000 sf GLA of restaurant space The following paragraphs analyze the ramifications of the proposed change. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Table 4 of the previously approved traffic impact report2 summarized the trip generation for Phase 1B. Phase 1B was projected to add 176 new trips to the street system in the afternoon peak hour. The trip generation calculation was based on the amount of "regional shopping center"floor area plus the number of cinema seats in each phase of the development. Nowhere in the calculation is the amount of restaurant space discussed. This is because restaurant uses fit within the definition of a regional shopping center. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) define a regional shopping center as a collection of land uses where at least 80% of the uses within the project are retail. For purposes of a regional shopping center, non-retail uses are defined by ULI and ICSC as restaurant, entertainment, cinema and office uses. When the amount of restaurant, entertainment, cinema, and office space exceeds 20% of the total square footage of the project, that project should be considered a mixed-use development rather than a regional shopping center. 2 Traffic and Parking Analysis for Westfield Santa Anita Expansion Project,Fehr&Peers,December 2006. Mr. Jason Kruckeberg October 3,2011 Page 3 Even with the proposed change to Phase 1B non-retail uses ([121,715 of restaurant + ' Westfield Santa Anita would contain only 13% therefore the tri 73,938 of cinema) / 1,469,539 total sf = o p generation appropriate f rates for a regional shopping center are still a 13e fo) the modified Phase 1B project. or the Thus, the change to Phase 1B restaurant space would not change the trip generation of the project, and the conclusions of the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR would still be valid. Traffic Comaarisons The City asked that the conclusions of the 2007 Certified Addendum to the Conditions on the street system to confirm that the Phase 1B tr affic would not cause any significant impacts under today's conditions. a EIR be compared to First, to review the criteria for significant impacts, the 2007 Ce stated the following: rtifed Addendum to the EIR "The City of Arcadia has established threshold criteria used to determine traffic impact of a proposed project on the study intersection the significant intersection is considered significant when one of the following thresholds project's impact et an is exceeded: 1. The increase in traffic demand generated by a proposed project equals exceeds 2% of the intersection's capacity causing a level of service (LOS) E or F condition, or (LOS) 2. The increase in volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio is equal to or greater 0.020 with the addition of project traffic, worsening an intersection already projected to operate at LOS E or F conditions before g than added." the project traffic is Table 1 attached to this memo summarizes the projected 2008 cumulative without the Phase 1B project. Conditions for both a weekday and a Saturday in the o table. er conditions ar with and urday are summarized Column C shows that the Phase 1B project did not create an increase in enough to cause a significant impact regardless of the intersection's increment was not greater than 0.020 at any location. On n weekday V/C ratio project impact equaled or exceeded 0.020 at only three locatio n a Saturday, the incremental °n's LOS because the ns. Baldwin Avenue & Driveway B Baldwin Avenue & Duarte Road Huntington Drive & Driveway E/La Cadena Avenue These three intersections were projected to operate at LOS D or 1B project in place and therefore the Phase 1 B project did not cause a significant 2008 with the at any of the locations. gnificant impact at any Mr. Jason Kruckeberg October 3, 2011 Page 4 Weekday afternoon peak hour counts were taken in late 2009 and 2010 at all 23 of the intersections covered in the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR. Mid-day Saturday counts during race track operations were conducted at 18 of the 23 study intersections most likely to be affected by race track traffic. These counts were adjusted upwards to account for background traffic growth between 2009/10 and 2011. In addition the counts were factored upward to add traffic that would have been generated by an occupied Robinsons May building. Thus the 2011 traffic counts include the growth in background traffic projected in the traffic report plus the traffic associated with related projects built between 2005 and 2010 as well as traffic associated with the Phase 1B project itself. As can be seen in Column D of Table 1, the addition of Phase 1B project traffic would not have triggered a significant impact even if the existing Phase 1B traffic had been added to 2011 conditions. The increment of existing Phase 1B traffic would not cause any significant weekday impacts, and the three intersections where the Saturday increment is larger than 0.020 all still operate at LOS D or better. Thus, the conclusions of the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR are still valid. The addition of Phase 1B traffic to the street system would not result in any significant impacts at the key study intersections. This conclusion would be the same for the modified Phase 1B condition. Detailed capacity calculation worksheets and traffic volume count sheets have been submitted to the City for its review. PARKING IMPACTS There are two methods for estimating the peak parking demand at a regional shopping center— both based on ULI and ICSC procedures and data. The first method uses the ULI/ICSC national standard parking rate as adjusted by the amount of non-retail space within the center, and the second method treats the center as a mixed-use development and calculates the parking demands of the individual land uses within the development using the ULI shared parking model. The results using both methodologies are described below. 1. ICSC/ULI Parking Ratios The ULI and ICSC provide guidelines for calculating parking requirements for regional shopping centers. When the percentage of non-retail uses is between 10 % and 20% of total gross leasable area (GLA) (Westfield Santa Anita would have a total percentage of non-retail use of 13.3% should the increased restaurant request be granted), ULI recommends a sliding scale for calculating parking ratios. Essentially, this methodology increases the parking demand rate by 0.03 spaces per 1,000 sf of GLA for each percentage point of non-retail space between 10% and 20%. When a center exceeds 20% non-retail use, it is no longer a regional shopping center, but rather a mixed-use development. With the previously approved Phase 1B restaurant totals, the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center would include 12.2% of its floor space in non-retail land uses. The proposed Phase 1B restaurant space increase would change that percentage to 13.3%. Mr. Jason Kruckeberg October 3, 2011 Page 5 ULI/ICSC recommends the following parking ratios for shopping centers above ULI/I 600,000 sf Condition Parkins Ratio Ad'ustment for 13% Non-Retail Total Rati • Weekday 4.0 sp/1000 sf GLA +0.09 4.09 sp/1000 sf GLA Weekend 4.5 sp/1000 sf GLA +0'09 4.59 sp/1000 sf GLA The actual parking supply at Westfield Santa Anita on a December weekda a weekend (with the off-site parking program in place) is as follows: Y and a December Weekday 6,204 sp/ 1,469,539 sf = 4.22 sp/1000 sf GLA Weekend 6,954 sp/ 1,469,539 sf 4.73 sp/1000 sf GLA Thus, Westfield Santa Anita exceeds the national parking supply standard for both the weekend conditions in December. oth the weekday 2. Shared Parkins The parking analysis conducted for 2007 Certified Addendum used the ULI shared to analyze the parking demand patterns at the center. The model was calibrated the existing hared parking Saturday in the peak month of December. This peak demand during a mid-da ibrated to Phase 1A open and in full operation. and was measured at the hour ite with Existing Phase 1B Parkins Conditions The Phase 1B project provided a total of 6,204 parking spaces to This represents a parking surplus of 460 spaces when compared to the 5, space spaceed cenred by City Code. This would remain the same with the modified restaurant condition. required The ULI shared parking model calibrated for steady state conditions was n peak parking demand for existing conditions with the Phase 1B project. used to estimate the The ULI calibrated model suggests that the current configuration of land uses at the generates a demand for 6,031 spaces on a December weekday and 6,825 spaces center a ar on a December Saturday. Exhibits 1A — 1E show the summary of the peak month parking demand 3 Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute and of Shopping Centers, 1999, page 56;and Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land International Council of Shopping nd International pping Centers, 2005, page 11. and Institute Mr.Jason Kruckeberg October 3,2011 Page 6 for the existing land uses within the center with the approved Phase 1B in place. Exhibits 1C— 1 E show the graphical representation of the monthly and hourly parking demand patterns. Analysis of monthly parking demand over the course of a year suggests that the existing parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the peak parking demand for every month of the year except December(Exhibits 1C and 1 D). Exhibits 1C and 1D also show that the parking demand during all months of the year from January through November would have more than sufficient parking to meet the demand. In fact, during most days of the year there will be more than 1,000 empty spaces in the center's parking supply. Therefore, the existing parking supply of 6,204 spaces is sufficient to meet the demands of the center on all but December Saturdays. These four peak days of the year would require that an off-site employee program, as currently utilized by the applicant and set forth in the 2007 Certified Addendum, be continued in order to meet the total parking demand during the holiday season. The current off-site employee parking program supplies 621 spaces on weekends between Thanksgiving and New Years. Proposed Promenade (Phase 1131 Restaurant Request The proposed restaurant request would increase the center's restaurant space to 121,715 sf GLA while reducing the retail space to 1,273,886 sf GLA. The demand analysis performed with the proposed restaurant condition indicates that the site is expected to generate a peak parking demand of 6,173 spaces on a December weekday and 6,954 spaces on a December Saturday (Exhibits 2A and 2B), which represents an increase of 142 and 129 spaces, respectively, over the level predicted in the currently approved project. This parking demand increase is due to the higher parking demand generation by the increased restaurant space. Again, this is the parking demand expected during the busiest hours of the year on a December weekday and weekend. Analysis of parking demand over the course of a year suggests that the parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would satisfy the parking demand of the Phase 1B project with the proposed restaurant condition during every month except December(Exhibits 2C and 2D). Under the proposed condition, the site would continue to have over 1,000 empty spaces on all weekdays of the year except December and it would have hundreds of empty parking spaces on all weekend days except those in December. For example, Exhibit 3 shows the hourly parking demand for the modified Phase 1B during the month of June, an average shopping month. On a June weekday, the peak parking demand never reaches 5,000 spaces, which means that even with the additional restaurant space in place in Phase 1B, the center would still have over 1,200 empty parking spaces during the busiest hour of a June weekday. Consistent with the approved 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR, the applicant will continue an off-site employee parking program for weekends throughout December. The number of off- site employee parking spaces would increase by approximately 129 spaces for a total 750 spaces due to the increased restaurant space. As stated in the 2007 Certified Addendum, the applicant would provide the details of the holiday parking program to the City during the fall of each year to demonstrate the availability of the necessary off-site spaces on an annual basis. Mr. Jason Kruckeberg October 3, 2011 Page 7 CONCLUSION Westfield is seeking to modify a condition applicable to the Promenade (Phase 1B) t o increase the amount of allowable restaurant space from 10,000 sf to up to 30,000 sf — an increase sf over the existing approved level. An equal amount of retail space in Phase crease would be reduced so that there is no net increase in total square footage for Phase 1B. se 1 B would The shift from retail to restaurant would not affect the trip generation of the project the traffic conclusions of the 2007 Certified Addendum remain valid. The projected with the Phase 1B traffic were compared to actual 2011 P � ct and therefore 1B in place. It was determined that Phase 1B did not result P � ed 2008 traffic conditions with Phase would it create any significant impacts even under 2011 conditions.s�gnificant traffic impacts, nor As was the case with the approved Phase 1B project, the current parking spaces would satisfy code parking requirements at all times and it exceeds the national 6,204 parking supply standards recommended by ULI and ICSC. The parking demand of the 1B project with the modified restaurant condition would be accommodated national year except December weekends, during which the applicant would continue Phase at all times of the employee parking program, as described in the 2007 Certified Addendum. The existing of restaurant space allocation would increase off-site parking demand by 129 change of during the busiest hour of the year (i.e., December weekends). y 9 Parking spaces increased parking demand, the existing 6,204-space supply would still have over 1,000 parking spaces on most days of the year. However, even with this 0 empty Therefore, the existing parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the parking demand 1B project with the modified restaurant condition, and the conclusions of the Addendum are still valid. The applicant would continue to confirm g and of the off- site holiday he 2007 y parking program each year. m with the City its off- Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding these findings. r'- TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF 2008 TO 2011 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Column A Column B Column C Column D I Cumulative 2008 Cumulative 2008 Phase 1B Protect 2011 Conditions w # Intersection Peak Base lus Phase 16 Hour P Increase Significant Phase 1B WC LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact? V/C LOS 1 Baldwin Ave West&Foothill Blvd SAT 0.827 D 0.833 D 0.006 NO 0.682 B* 1 P.M. 0.925 E. 0.927 E 0.002 NO 0.717 C* SAT 0.621 B 0.623 B 0.002 NO 2 Baldwin Ave East&Foothill Blvd 0.870 D P.M. 0.839 D 0.843 D 0.004 NO 0.670 B** 3 Baldwin Ave&1-210 EB Ramps SAT 0.828 D 0.837 D 0.009 NO 0.772 C* P.M. 0.721 C 0.726 C 0.005 NO 0:599 A* 4 Baldwin Ave&Driveway A SAT 0.647 B 0.665 B 0.018 NO 0.619 B P.M. 0.551 A 0.565 A 0.014 NO 0.441 A 5 Baldwin Ave&Driveway B SAT 0.683 A 0.603 B 0.020 NO 0.601 B P.M. 0.530 A 0.640 A 0.010 NO 0.424 A 6 Baldwin Ave&Driveway C SAT 0.506 A 0.520 A 0.014 NO 0.498 A P.M. 0.617 B 0.629 B 0.012 NO 0.464 A SAT 0.693 B 0.705 C 0.012 NO 7 Baldwin Ave&Huntington Dr 0.728 C P.M. 0.814 D 0.823 D 0.009 NO 0.801 D 8 Baldwin Ave&Duarte Rd SAT 0.825 D 0.877 D 0.052 NO 0.863 D P.M. 0.837 D 0.847 D 0.010 NO 0.819 D 9 Sunset Blvd&Huntington Dr SAT 0.732` C 0.736 C 0.004 NO 0.679 B* P.M. 0.981 E 0.983 E 0.002 NO 0.853 D* 10 Rosemead Blvd&Huntington Dr SAT 0.812 D 0.816 0 0.004 NO NC - P,M. 0.978 E 0.980 E 0.002 NO 0.930 E• 11 Driveway D&Huntington Dr SAT 0.386 A 0.397 A 0.011 NO 0.484 A P.M. 0.422 A 0.431 A 0.009 NO 0.423 A 12 Huntington Dr&Driveway E/La Cadena Ave SAT 0.573 A 0.597 . A 0.024 NO 0.595 A P.M. 0.527 A 0.543 A 0.016 NO 0.530 A 13 Huntington Dr&Colorado Place SAT 0.531 A 0.535 A 0.004 NO 0.557 A P.M. 0.692 B 0.694 B 0.002 NO 0.721 C 14 Huntington Dr&Holly Ave SAT 0.430 A 0.433 A 0.003 NO 0.500 A P.M. 0.549 A 0.552 A 0.003 NO 0.550 A 15 Huntington Dr&Santa Clara St SAT 0.582 A 0.587 A 0.005 NO 0.609 B P.M. 0.646 B 0.648 B 0.002 NO 0.637 B 16 Huntington Dr&Santa Anita Ave SAT 0.652 B 0.654 B 0.002 NO 0.699 B P.M. 0.831 D 0.833 D 0.002 NO 0.829 D SAT 0.710 C 0.712 C 0.002 NO 17 Huntington Dr&1-210 EB Ramps NC P.M. 0.806 D 0.806 D 0.000 NO 0.625 B** - 18 Huntington Dr&1-210 WB Ramps SAT 0.632 B 0.635 B 0.003 NO NC P.M. 0.653 A 0.554 A 0.001 NO 0.587 A 19 Santa Anita Ave&Santa Clara St SAT 0.611 B 0.613 B 0.002 NO 0.662 B P.M. 0.771 C 0.773 C 0.002 NO 0.799 C 20 Santa Anita Ave&1-210 EB Ramps SAT 0.678 B 0.679 B 0.001 NO NC - P.M. 0.675 B 0.678 B 0.001 NO 0.730 C 21 Santa Anita Ave&1-210 WB Ramps SAT 0.686 B 0.689 B 0.003 NO NC P.M. 0.564 A 0.565 A 0.001 NO 0.583 A 22 Huntington Dr&2nd Ave SAT 0.672 B 0.674 B 0.002 NO 0.645 B P.M. 0.815 D 0.817 D 0.002 NO 0.775 C** 23 Santa Anita Ave&Colorado Blvd SAT 0.657 B 0.659 B 0.002 NO 0.640 B P.M. 0.863 D 0.865 D 0.002 NO 0.752 C** NOTES All Saturday Counts are shown with the Race Track in operation All Weekday Counts are shown without Race Track in operation 2008 capacity calculation reults are from Tables 5A(Weekday)and 5C(Saturday)in the 2007 Certified Addendum All capacity calculations have been adjusted upward to reflect full operations of the Robinsons May building in the mall •V/C improvement between 2011 and 2008 is a result of physical or operational intersection improvements Implemented by the City of Arcadia or others ••V/C improvements is a result of a reduction in through traffic along corridors parallel to 1-210 NC--Not Counted--These intersections were not counted on Saturday because of limited race track effects ' I 123011-1 illti,, w 8 _ o ITXS ill, i ! Ear r1' as n a ��ENT O I In 1 iaZZZ J ua DNS 1231 d 11 t nt ii It am ii i I ill 1 I 11 i • aL� a- .. tip VI 7,i, "ii am w f liEW a 88 ! EPIW IE 11m -- C.. 1 - m,7 mm prii . . 7V- AM 0, .0—*.- 0- .4,* a.- • W WfON4Wt0' 'm0 r FNN'. ,CC gNypp pp N , ,N W V m.1 O ,O 4 , ,I O� I F- .r v yy rym , ggg Q� �,WOW" N N .g. - N ,vim) �Napp- g}�p m, Y WN O)v aoV • CON ��,j N, V ON V, 10 A _ ♦e . .m „ Y„ . 00 w) , V. )n c P 4.— C illEiv20'2 ,5 gl gA m ) <- m .m., ., m pa y N v6 jj i 1 n „ N„ IG • S 1 N VI `l��N�'t) 'fD N }QV� fD ..V„ e. m ig j N m, V r.!1.. {Or . F 56 U iriF , 1! ' N N, . g �j Qa, 6 N a) N $ F. 11,2 F ii• 'I ' 'i1 ' 0 m 2 rA 1 ii:11 , , Fal 1 r m 1 111 E 15;15 8 Y Y 6 ; i 1 1 1 r 3$ 1 o 1 o i (! i 1 i s I s I it . m; :] i d it 11111'" i I 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 2 r rilgrea7,milroinen 1°. lido , ,o0071111W.M4 3 , rieze, _,,, , zir ,.."4., , I r r. ..ei~", -ir' ZOOM g • I L ' wroidreffrowrzee-Aedeara I am vz ' 1111111111111111111 .c C co Q 21- 07 e2 111111111111111111111111 2 24 .g a ., r'd"dr"��+� . cum w r C ct o i%,,,/,"',0 - d ez,-4 0"„kir,, - /-- k k " ' 111111111111111110 r y i �,,�,+,��,,�� / .!;' Prarfie',..aSW TA 10°AM o ___� -� 000 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 0 of M 0 0 SIIeMS Oul�aed •- CD c Y Y la 19 Med 4 bc, M1 , 4 4 tz Eh ...edrar AW77.6050956, 4 a0 r.+ .r- d iZor ,rr.•.r.,+.rrrAr.+.frr rya COo �a6 as V..rr..rOr•17#rrrrrrr4#7107X07 rKO7.r �, CY al "0 S.t.N.N.71•XXX‘XXXX‘XXXXXXX\11XXXXXXXXXS1SN's, X"..."NN H c 1#WI mss. ...raor. otT.WAAWei07;#9'r.+ .r 101091 , d 0 CYi9 d N a - Karr. ..rr..712271 77,1!,+r. rig rA . . , .ate .rr . Ipab 0n !.;..1..'+,+,1. '��.\`tXXX1 `�.X.'1i#�.`�''�.\'�►NX.1.11'1'+►\'1`�►wX.',,1.1.'",.'"S s °- ;9ro zi..rarerr�zizez..rrrrzrr,ezz rz.rr. ,y = x = d MI 175 13- lrJ0J'1 JYI �7.107.0 "OIJ#!./1X6r:07:4�/. lr 9 9 A C se- ���� "4' 13 w d ez 5 Q d► .rrWrrr .r.rr rr..rr.�r.r'WJ7:. ip U) H ��� d 0 `O ' �b w b C Mr, b o co r- co to `.4- l� N Or SUM&Wed 1 UPI lila iiiiiii saw sion Ins ass lam 1/11111 al i id NM f 1 iiiiiiili MU MEE MU i I iiiiiiiN i MN F !1+ Siiiiia .' NEN I liiiiill 1 liiiiiii f d ENE iiiiin Rim ! Pin Elan i lifillili fillIM EMU EMU WM BMW MN ME ME NM III CITY OF ARCADIA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Pro•osed Modification to Condition of A. •royal for Phase Westfield Santa Anita: 1 b The Promenade of 2. Lead agency name and address: C' of Arcadia 200 West Huntin•ton Drive Arcadia CA 91066 3. Contact person and phone number: Lisa Flores 626 574-5445 4. Project location: 400 South Baldwin Avenue Arcadia CA 91007 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Westfield LLC on behalf of Prose Owners Santa Anita Sho• •in•town LP and Santa Fashion Park LP. ants 11601 Wilshire Boulevard 11th Floor Los An•ales CA 90025 6. General plan designation: Re Tonal Commercial 7. Zoning: C-2-D C-2D& H8 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary to r its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) ssry for In 1999 Westfield LLC submitted an a• •lication to e •and sho• •in• center uses o n the Westfield Santa Anita •ro•e b 600 000 s•uare feet of •ross leasable area GLA An EIR hereafter referred to as the Certified EIR was •re•ared that addressed t he environmental conse•uences of the 600 000-s•uare-foot ex•ansion. On October 3e 2000 in several entitlement actions b the C' of Arcadia this •ro'ect was a• •roved with the •rovision that each unit of develo•ment be sub'ect to an architectural w •rocess. Phase la of the ex•ansion with 255 943 s•uare feet of GLA uwas corn pleted in October 2004. In 2006 Westfield LLC filed a••lications for a second • develo•ment referred to as Phase lb The Promenade which •ro•o hase of 115 000 s•uare feet of sho• •in• center GLA. In 2007 an Addendum to the Certified E I was •re•ared that evaluated the environmental conse•uences of Phase la Phase lb City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 16 of Westfield Santa Ant Matrix Environmental to October 2011 Page 1 Environmental Checklist Form and the balance of the 600.000 square feet of GLA approved for the site (Phase 2). The Addendum demonstrated that all of the impacts associated with Phase la, Phase lb, and Phase 2 were within the envelope of impacts addressed in the Certified EIR. Specifically, the Addendum demonstrated that implementation of Phase 1 b and Phase 2 would not result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in a significant impact already identified in the Certified EIR. The City of Arcadia approved the Addendum and the design review application for Phase 1 b in 2007. As part of this approval, a Condition of Approval was included that limited the amount of restaurant GLA within Phase 1 b to 10,000 square feet. To date, approximately 9,059 'square feet of restaurant uses have been constructed or are underway within Phase 1 b. Westfield,. LLC proposes to modify the existing Condition of Approval regarding the maximum amount of restaurant GLA within Phase 1 b to provide for a maximum of 30,000 square feet of restaurant uses with a corresponding reduction in retail uses. This modification would result in a 20.000 square foot increase in the amount of restaurant uses permitted within Phase 1 b. When accounting for existing restaurant uses within Phase 1b, this increase would result in up to an additional 20.941 square feet of restaurant uses to be provided in lieu of ua to 20.941 square feet of retail uses. Thus, there would not be any increase in the total square footage approved as part of Phase 1 b. Rather, the space to be utilized for the up to 20,941 square feet of additional restaurant uses is already built as part of the Promenade within the existing Westfield Santa Anita shopping center. No additional construction or other modifications would occur beyond typical tenant improvements in and around the existing buildings. 9. Surrounding land uses and settings: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Lands near the property are generally developed with urban uses. North of the property is the Santa Anita Park horse racing track, with stables immediately adioininq the property, and the grandstand and race track further to the north. East of the shopping center is the Santa Anita Park southern parking area. Northwest of the property on the west side of Baldwin Avenue is the Los Angeles County Arboretum. West of the property along the west side of Baldwin Avenue are multi-family residential dwellings. The City of Arcadia Fire Station No. 106, located at the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, is located to the southwest of the shopping center. South of the property along Huntington Drive are multi-family residential buildings with commercial buildings located at the intersection of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY Environmental Checklist Form AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potential) Y a ffected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Irri checklist on the following pages. pact" as indicated by the []Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑Air Quality ❑Biological Resources ❑Cultural Resources ❑Geology/Soils ❑Greenhouse Gas Emissions ['Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality 'Land Use/Planning ❑Mineral Resources ❑Noise ❑Population/Housing ❑Public Services ❑Recreation DTransportation/Traffic 'Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of 'Significance • City of Arcadia Matrix Environmental Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita October 2011 Page 3 Environmental Checklist Form DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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 the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the environmental impacts have been accounted for in an earlier environmental document and no further documentation is required. ❑ 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. Cf./ II ISiii Signature Date L� Po,r1s a Printed Name For 3 U City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 4 Environmental Checklist Form EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. 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 involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standard (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based standards project- specific screening analysis). on a project- 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and const as well as operational impacts. ruction as 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact"if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there e one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5 below may be cross-referenced). ) 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify�y th e a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above 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 b mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. by c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 5 Environmental Checklist Form or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) 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 significance. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 6 l Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Im____pact Incorporated Impact 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? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ED d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact a—d. The modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b t an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 to provide of retail uses would be implemented entirely within the existing Phase 1�b development, suare feet referred to as The Promenade. Phase lb included the development of retail, restaurant ad parking uses In the southwest quadrant of the property, within the buding limi lin and Building Area C. Within Phase lb, shopping center uses are centered around limit open for landscaped promenade located above two levels of parking, one of which is ad open air partially at grade and the other which is entirely subterranean. Phase 1 b is integrated existing shopping center structures, including the existing Nordstrom building to th grated with the Macy's building to the east. 9 e north and With the exception of the grandstands at the Santa Anita Racetrack and Angeles Arboretum, no locally recognized scenic resources are located within the the Los n of the shopping center or within the shopping center itself. The San Gabriel Mount vicinity e distant north are the most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed to the Promenade. Additionally, no designated scenic highways are located adjacent to from the view of The Promenade. As the modified condition to Phase 1 b would,not ndev to whew structures that would modify the existing elevations of the Promenade, long-range vie new the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would continue to be available from e views of Drive. Additionally, due to the location of the proposed modification and lack of new buildings to be developed, views of the Santa Anita Racetrack Grandstands or the Los buildings Angeles Arboretum would not be affected. Thus, the modified condition to Phase lb would r no impact to scenic resources and views and such impacts would be within the esult in of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. envelope of City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Sant a Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 7 Environmental Checklist Form The modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase lb would provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses. Thus, the modified Condition would not materially change the overall massing and height of proposed buildings, or the landscape concept implemented for Phase 1 b. Architectural materials would be similar to that previously evaluated for Phase 1 b with the use of material such as stucco, stone natural wood, painted storefront metals, and other materials that are not highly reflective. Proposed lighting would continue to comply with the design guidelines established as part of Resolution 6199 that specify that light standards may not be more than 20 feet in height and that lighting shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights of way. Such lighting would not exceed the City threshold of 0.1 foot candles onto residential uses. Thus, the proposed modification would not substantially change the aesthetic at all. No impacts would occur and the proposed improvements have been accounted for in the 2007 Addendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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 Dept.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 Impottance(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 ❑ ❑ ❑ El Williamson Act Contract? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 8 i Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, Impact In ❑cIncorporated Impact Impact 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? ❑ ❑ El 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? No Impact a-e. The proposed modification to Phase 1 b to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses s would be implemented entirely within the existing Phase 1 b (The Promenade) portion Westfield Santa Anita shopping center. Westfield Santa Anita is entirely developed with r the and restaurant uses and associated landscaping. Additionally, the Westfield Santa Anita property is currently zoned as C-2-D, and C-2D and H8, and is designated for Regional Commercial uses. As such, no agricultural or forest uses are located on or near the shopping center. Thus, the proposed modification would not convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or forest land; result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land; or involve other changes which could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed modification would result in no impacts to agricultural resources and such i Therefore, would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. mpacts 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? ❑ b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ® ❑ violation? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 9 Environmental Checklist Form 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)? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of people? Less than Significant impact a—e. The proposed modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase lb to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would occur within existing buildings and would not require new construction beyond typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings. Thus, any construction emissions would be extremely limited and the modified Condition for Phase 1 b would not change the conservative construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction activities set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Construction impacts would be less than significant and well within the impact envelope set forth in the 2007 Addendum. With regard to operational emissions, the proposed modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b would not result in a change in regional air pollutant emissions relative to existing conditions or those previously disclosed in the 2007 Addendum. Mobile source emissions are directly dependent on the number of vehicular trips generated by a specified use, based on trip rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The trip rate that applies to Westfield Santa Anita is a "shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa Anita has and will continue to meet the definition of a "shopping center," as set forth by ITE, either with or without the proposed modification. This rate accounts for retail and restaurant uses. As the shopping center rate would continue to be applied with the proposed modification, the trip generation and the associated mobile source emissions would not change. Similarly, area source emissions associated with the usage of natural gas would not change as a result of the proposed increase in restaurant space and corresponding reduction in retail space, since the natural gas usage rates for shopping centers and restaurant uses set forth in the URBEMIS model are identical. In the event that the new restaurant use includes a charbroiler, the resultant air pollutant emissions would be approximately 0.8 pounds per day of PM10, 0.7 pounds per day of PM2.5, 2.1 pounds per day of CO, 0.1 pounds per day of VOC, and 0.2 pounds per day of NOx. Pollutant emissions from the charbroiler would only represent between 0.2 to 1.3 percent of the SCAQMD regional daily operational emission City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase l b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 10 Environmental Checklist Form significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed modification would involve a negligible or no expansion of pollutant emissions in comparison to existing uses and would no • the significance conclusions set forth in the 2007 Addendum. not change any of With regard to potential odor impacts, shopping centers, including restaurant identified by SCAQMD as uses that are associated with g odor with h, are potential to affect a substantial number of people. In the objectionable odors with the include a charbroiler, the charbroiler would be operated in accordance that the restaurant uses 1138 (Restaurant Operations). Compliance with this regulation rdance with SCAQMD Rule odor impacts would be less than significant as set forth in the 2007 Addendum. ensure that potential dendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Impact pact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 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 U.S. 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 tree preservation policy ❑ 0 or ordinance? 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? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 16 of Westfield Sa nta Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 11 Environmental Checklist Form No Impact a—f. The proposed modification to Phase 1 b to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would be implemented entirely within the existing Phase 1 b (The Promenade) portion of the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center. As described in the 2007 Addendum, no unique or sensitive species are located on the Westfield Santa Anita property, including the Promenade, and therefore such species would not be affected by implementation of the Phase 1 b modification. In addition, as the modified Condition of Approval would not require the construction of new buildings, existing on-site vegetation consisting of ornamental trees and landscaping plants would not be removed. Thus,the proposed modification would result in no impacts to biological resources and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of ❑ ❑ ❑ =� a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ❑ El of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? No Impact a—d. The proposed modification to Phase lb to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would be implemented entirely within the existing Phase 1 b (The Promenade) portion of the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center. There are no historic structures within or immediately adjacent to The Promenade. In addition, the proposed modification would not include construction of new structures requiring grading or excavation in areas not previously disturbed. Thus, the proposed modification would not result in a potential to discover cultural resources. As such, the proposed modification would result in no impacts to cultural resources and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 12 i Environmental Checklist Form 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 ❑ ❑ ED 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. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No • Impact_ Incorporated Impact Impact ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ 0 ® ❑ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ El iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, ❑ ❑ 0 and potential result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating ❑ ❑ substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal ❑ ❑ systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No impact ad, a.fii, a.iv, and b-e; Less than Significant impact a.ii. As disc in the Certified EIR and the 2007 Addendum, the nearest Earthquake Fault discussed Raymond EFZ, located immediately north of the Project site. The Raymond Fault extends is the approximately 12 miles from Monrovia to Los Angeles. Since the Project site is located outside the boundary of the Raymond EFZ, the potential for ground surface rupture tes considered remote. Other nearby faults include the Sierra Madre EFZ, which lies further n is of the site. The Sierra Madre EFZ is an active fault system that bounds the southern north the San Gabriel Mountains and extends from the Cajon Pass to the San Fernando m Valley. In of addition, the regional San Andreas fault lies approximately 20 miles north of the site. T In no impacts associated with fault rupture are expected and such impacts would within Thus, envelope set forth in the 2007 Addendum. be within the City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Matrix Environmental Anita October 2011 Page 13 Environmental Checklist Form As with other development within the seismically active southern California region, the existing buildings within Phase lb would be subject to strong seismic groundshaking during a seismic event. However, as the modified condition would be implemented entirely within existing structures, which were required to comply with the City and Uniform Building Code requirements, as well as the recommendations set forth in a specific geotechnical report, potential impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant and within the envelope of impact set forth in the 2007 Addendum. As the Phase 1 b modification would not require construction of new buildings, the modified condition would not expose soils at the site. As such, soil erosion would not occur. In addition, the site is underlain by thick alluvium with the specific soil type as the Hanford Association soils. These soils have a low shrink-swell behavior and are not considered expansive soils. Moreover, the modified condition does not propose the use or installation of septic tanks. Therefore, the proposed modification would not result in impacts associated with soil erosion, expansive soils or soils incapable of supporting septic tanks and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the 2007 Addendum. In addition, the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center, including the Promenade, is not located within a state-designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone of Required Investigation. Therefore, liquefaction potential at the site is considered low. The site is also not mapped within a state-designated Landslides Hazard Zone of Required Investigation. Similarly, because the Promenade is already developed, and on-site soils are already compacted and covered, there is no evidence to suggest that the soils are not suitable. Therefore, the proposed modification is not expected to result in any impacts associated with liquefaction, landslides, and unstable soils and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the 2007 Addendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 14 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant a; No impact b. As discussed above under Response the proposed modification to Phase lb would not change the conservative onse I. Air construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction activities set forth in the 2007 Addendum since additional construction or other confca ions would occur beyond typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings.s. Thus,the modification to include additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses 5 of result Thus, any substantial GHG emissions related to construction. would not result in any With regard to operational GHG emissions, the proposed modification would a change in GHG operational emissions relative to existing condition d not result disclosed in the 2007 Addendum. Specifically, mobile source emissions s those uses dependent on the number of vehicular trips generated by a specified use, bass are directly established by ITE. As described above, the trip rate that applies to Westfield Santa on trip rates "shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa Anita has and will continue to meet Santa Anita is a of a "shopping center," as set forth by ITE, either with or without the proposed mo definition This rate accounts for retail and restaurant uses. As the shopping center rate P d modification. to be applied with the proposed modification, the trip would continue the source emissions would not change. Similarly, area source emissions associated tad mobile usage of natural gas would not change as a result of the proposed increase in s to the space, since the natural gas usage rates for shopping centers and restaurant uses set forth in the URBEMIS model are identical. In the event that the restaurant use includes orth in the resultant GHG emissions would be approximately 19 metric tons per ears r 0.6 percent of the SCAQMD Draft GHG significance threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year.' 0.6 percent the proposed modification would involve a negligible or no expansion of GHG Therefore, comparison to existing uses and would not change any of the significance conclusions s in forth in the 2007 Addendum. ons set The proposed modification would support California's goal to reduce GHG under CARB's Climate Change Scoping plan for the implementation of Assembly emissions For example, the proposed uses would be accessible to Y and (AB)existing 32. infrastructure would be available to service the proposed restaurant uses sitThed opotind modification would also provide a more complete and multi-faceted dining, entertainment proposed shopping experience for the community. This integration of land uses would serve tre and GHG emissions by reducing vehicle trips, e to reduce and promoting efficient delivery of services and goods alThe Therefore, the proposed vehicle travel would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted°for the modification rpos reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. purpose of ' In October 2008, SCAQMD released draft guidance regarding interim CEQA GHG significance The threshold was set based on a percent emission reduction target (e.g., 30 ent) to threermine significance for commercial/residential projects that emit greater than 3,000 mtric tons has yet to adopt a GHG significance threshold for land use development projects a percent) to determine protects) per year. SCAQMD ( g., residential/commeroial City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Sant a Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 15 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ El environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ El environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ El acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ El where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ El would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑ El injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact a—h. The Phase 1 b modification would be implemented within existing buildings and the proposed restaurant uses would be consistent with existing uses within Westfield Santa Anita. As such, other than the use of cleaning agents in accordance with regulatory requirements, the modified Condition to Phase 1 b would not generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials which could pose public health hazards, nor would the Phase 1b modification include the storage of explosives or combustible materials. In addition, the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or airstrip. The Phase 1 b modification would also not result in any roadway or access improvements and thus would not City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 16 I , Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Less Than Significant Impact a. The proposed modification to of Approval for Phase lb to provide additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail the Condition in an increase in the discharge of pollutants typically associated with restaurant t anmay result s fats, oil, and grease. However, the Phase 1 b modification would be uedt to comply such as the Phase lb Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) required by comply with Pollutant Discharge Elimination System � SMP) required by the National requirements. The SUSMP for Phase lb incorporates(NPDES) Best Management and City of Arcadia which include grease interceptor; for restaurants that are properly went connected to t e public sanitary sewer and the use of Storm Filters that target primary non-point ont Y rinected to the public such as suspended solids, oil and grease, soluble metals, nutrients, organics,p source pollutants, debris. With compliance with NPDES and City requirements, the Phase rg rncs, and trash and would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge re uir lb modification associated with water quality would be less than significant. Such impacts ws and impacts the envelope of impacts set forth in the 2007 Addendum, would be within No Impact b• j. The proposed modification to the Condition to provide additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would be implemented for Phase 1 b existing buildings within The Promenade portion of Westfield Santa Anita mented within the the construction of new buildings would not occur. As such, the proposed' Thus, rading and Phase lb would not change existing drainage patterns or impervious surfaces,modification trer to groundwater recharge, or result in increases in stormwater runoff quantities or interfere with addition, with the proposed modification, compliance with National Pollutant r Disch Ie Elimination System requirements associated with operation would conti e. Th Discharge the proposed modification would result in no impacts to hydrology/water quality u and such imp cts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the in the 2007 Adden ch impacts Addendum. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or El regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the ❑ ❑ ❑ project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 18 Environmental Checklist Form affect emergency access. Finally, as the Project site is located in an urbanized area that is fully developed, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not result in any impacts associated with wildiand fires. Therefore, the Phase 1 b modification would not result in any impacts associated with hazards/hazardous materials and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the 2007 Addendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ EA.4 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 land 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 17 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan Im Incorporated Impact Impact 0 or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ El No Impact a—c. The proposed modification to Phase lb would not develop buildings or introduce uses that would be incompatible with existing uses already new on-site. Rather, the proposed restaurant uses would be consistent with existing Y established the shopping center. In addition, with the proposed modification to Phase uses within development within the shopping center would continue to be consistent with 1 lb, uses and regulations set forth for the site as well as the City of Arcadia General Plan designation a zoning site of Regional Commercial. Tenant improvements made as a for the modification would also conform to the existing zoning regulations that guide the the site.proposed the proposed modification would not result in impacts to land use and planning fie' Thus, impacts would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. Xi. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 0 El 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? No Impact a—b. The proposed modification to Phase 1 b to provide for additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would be implemented within the existing Pr area of the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center. No mineral resources known omenast. In addition, construction of new buildings and grading would not occur are as own to of he modification to Phase 1 b. Thus, the proposed modification would not result in any part c the mineral resources and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts ana impacts to 2007 Addendum. analyzed in the 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 Cl plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ❑ ❑ ►=� City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Matrix Environmental Anita October 2011 Page 19 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ ❑ El where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ 0 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact a—c and e—f; Less than Significant Impact d. The closest noise-sensitive uses are located a minimum of approximately 300 feet from the shopping center uses in Phase lb. In addition, noise-sensitive uses are separated from Phase lb by surface parking areas, and multi-lane roadways. The topography within the Project vicinity and mature landscaping would also continue to buffer Phase 1 b uses from adjacent land uses. The modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase lb to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would occur within the existing buildings. Construction activities would be limited to typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings and the majority of the construction activities would occur within the interior of the buildings. Thus, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the short-term construction activities would not change the conservative assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction activities set forth in the Addendum. Rather, construction noise levels would be well within the impact envelope set forth in the 2007 Addendum. As discussed above, the implementation of restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would not change the trip generation associated with operation of Phase 1 b. Thus, no impacts associated with traffic noise would occur with operation of the Phase 1 b modification and traffic noise would be similar to that set forth in the 2007 Addendum. As the proposed restaurant uses would occur within existing buildings and outdoor areas that are buffered by existing buildings, and loading areas would continue to operate as they do today, no impacts associated with increases in noise levels are expected to occur with City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 20 l Environmental Checklist Form the proposed modification. Such impacts would be within the envelope set forth in the a 2007 Westfield Santa Anita is not located within an airport land use plan, within two mil a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the proposed es of would result in no impacts associated with proximity to an airport or airstrip and such its modification would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. mpats Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Xlil. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a. Induce substantial population growth in an area either El 0 0 El directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact a—c. The modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b would provide for an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses and a corresponding decrease of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses. No new buildings would be de el 7g nor would any buildings be removed. The modification would not involve the removal of and residential uses, nor would any new residential uses be proposed. Thus, the proposed y modification would not displace existing housing or people or result in substantial population growth. In addition, based on the employment factors set forth in the Certified EIR and 200 Addendum, which are based on employees per 1,000 square feet of shopping center 2007 the modification of Phase 1 b to add up to another up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses, in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would not change the employment uses calculations for Phase 1b, which anticipated 150 full-time and 150 part-time employees. Thus, the proposed modification would not result in impacts associated with population housing and such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated i the 007 Addendum. 2007 City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 21 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. 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: a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c. Schools? ❑ El 0 d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ No impact a—e. The proposed modification to Phase 1 b does not include residential uses, which typically generate a demand for public services. In addition, as described above, the modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses would not generate an increase in on-site employment or an increase in building area. Furthermore, as set forth in the 2007 Addendum, the Applicant will continue to implement security measures within Phase 1 b including the provision of on-site security and the use of a closed circuit television system. Thus, no impacts associated with fire protection, police protection, schools, parks or libraries are expected. Such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. XV. RECREATION. a. Would the project 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. Does the project include recreational facilities or ❑ ❑ ❑ ��� require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact a—b. The proposed modification to Phase 1 b would not include any residential uses, nor would the proposed modification result in an increase in employment. Thus, the Phase 1 b modification would not result in a direct or indirect demand for neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. Furthermore, the proposed modification to City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 22 Environmental Checklist Form Phase 1 b does not include the development of recreational facilities. As such, n related to recreation would occur and such impacts would be within the envelo e of impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. P impacts Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact__________ XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Incorporated Impact Impact 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? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management 0 El 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? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including 0 1E1 either an increase in traffic levels or a change in ❑ ❑ location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or ❑ incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs 0 1E1 regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, ❑ ❑ or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? No Impact a—f. The proposed modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b to provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20 square feet of retail uses would occur within existing buildings and would not require new construction beyond typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings. As described above and discussed in detail in the technical memorandum prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting included in Appendix A, the trip rate that applies to Westfield ants Anita is a "regional shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa Anita has and will continue unto meet the definition of a "regional shopping center," either with or without the proposed City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 23 Environmental Checklist Form modification. Specifically, ULI and the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) define a regional shopping center as a collection of land uses where at least 80 percent of the uses within the project are retail. For purposes of a regional shopping center, non-retail uses are defined by ULI and ICSC as restaurant, entertainment, cinema and office uses. When the amount of restaurant, entertainment, cinema, and office space exceeds 20 percent of the total square footage of the project, that project should be considered a mixed-use development rather than a regional shopping center. Even with the proposed modification to Phase 1 b, Westfield Santa Anita would include approximately 13 percent non-retail uses. As the regional shopping center rate would continue to be applied with the proposed modification, the trip generation would not change. In addition, no changes in access or modifications to roadways are proposed as part of Phase 1 b. Therefore, the proposed modification to Phase 1 b would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, result in changes in air traffic patterns, result in emergency access or hazards impacts or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Thus, no impacts associated with transportation would occur and the traffic associated with the restaurant uses would be consistent with that set forth in the 2007 Addendum. As shown in the parking demand analysis within the technical memorandum prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, the existing parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces within the shopping center would satisfy the code-parking requirement for the site at all times of the year and the parking demand of Phase lb with the proposed modification at all times of the year except December weekends, during which the Applicant would continue its existing off-site employee parking program. Specifically, the change of restaurant space allocation would represent an increased demand for approximately 129 parking spaces on top of the parking demand that would generally occur during the busiest hour of the year (i.e., December weekends). However, even with this increased parking demand, the proposed 6,204-space supply would still have over 1,000 empty parking spaces on most days of the year. The parking supply would be adequate to meet the weekday parking demand during the December peak shopping period. As with Phase lb as originally approved, parking demand during December weekends would continue to be satisfied through an off-site employee parking program for weekends throughout December. Thus, as with existing operations, the Applicant would continue to present the details of the holiday parking program to the City during the fall of each year to demonstrate the availability of the necessary off-site spaces on an annual basis. Thus, with the proposed modification, parking impacts would continue to be less than significant as set forth in the 2007 Addendum. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 24 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the impact Incorporated impact Impact project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ❑ ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 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? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ❑ are new or expanded entitlements needed? 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? 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? ❑ ❑ El h. Other utilities and service systems? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ No impact a-e; Less Than Significant impact h. The proposed modificatio Phase lb would provide an increase of up to 20,941 square feet of restaurant n to up to 20,941 square feet of retail uses. The County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County ty of (CSDLAC) has set forth factors for wastewater generation within the County Sanitation oun No. 15's Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance. These factors include a wastewater tie io factor of 150 gallons per day per thousand square feet for "regional mall" use er heneratioe use that applies to the Project Site based on its size, its inclusion of an enclosed walla id the number of anchors that are present within the Project Site.2 This factor for "regional m d the accounts for the variety of uses typically located in a regional shopping center, including mall" cluding both 2 Westfield Santa Anita currently includes 1,469,539 square feet of GLA. The International Council Centers classifies regional shopping centers as having more than 400,000 of Shopping centers as having more than 800,000 square feet. In addition, Westfield Santa Anita includesua super enclosed mall. Thus, the"regional mall"factor is applicable to the Project. n en%sed City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa An Matrix Environmental Anita Ma October 2011 Page 25 Environmental Checklist Form restaurant and retail uses. Thus, the proposed conversion of retail uses to restaurant uses would not result in an overall increase in the amount of wastewater estimated to be generated from the shopping center. Furthermore, the 2007 Addendum for Phase 1 b used a more conservative wastewater demand factor of 325 gallons per day per thousand square feet for "shopping center" uses, although this factor is not representative of the Project Site since a shopping center is typically much smaller than a regional center or super regional center and typically is designed as an outdoor shopping center with a smaller percentage of anchors. As shown in the utility tables provided in Appendix B, use of this"shopping center"factor from the Addendum results in wastewater generation of approximately 37,375 gallons per day while use of the "regional mall" factor, which is the factor that applies to the Project Site, results in wastewater generation of approximately 17,250 gallons per day. In addition, as shown in the comparison tables provided in Appendix B, if one were to apply CSDLAC's separate commercial "retail store" and "restaurant" factors (even though these separate factors do not apply to regional shopping center uses and would overstate the estimate of wastewater generation) to the 85,000 square feet of retail uses and the 30,000 square feet of restaurant uses, the resulting wastewater generation would be 38,500 gallons per day, similar to that identified in the Addendum and Certified EIR. In addition, not accounted for in all of these factors are the numerous water conservation features that have been implemented within Westfield Santa Anita to conserve water and reduce wastewater generation. For example, the Applicant has installed waterless urinals within areas of the site. Each of these units reduces water usage by approximately 80,000 to 100,000 gallons per year on an annual basis. Furthermore, the Applicant would continue to comply with the mitigation measures listed in the Addendum and Certified EIR that require compliance with water conservation measures and replacement or repair of detector check valves if leaking is found. Based on the above, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not result in any impacts associated with wastewater infrastructure or wastewater facilities. Such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Water demand is typically calculated using wastewater factors and multiplying the factors by 125 percent. Thus, water demand associated with the proposed modification to Phase 1 b would be based on CSDLAC's "Regional Mall" factor of 150 gallons per day multiplied by 125 percent as this factor applies to the Project Site based on the amount of GLA within the Project Site, the fact that the Project Site includes an enclosed mall and the number of anchor tenants within the Project Site. As discussed above, since this factor accounts for the variety of uses typically found within a regional shopping center, including both retail and restaurant uses, the proposed modification to convert retail uses to restaurant uses would not change the estimated demand for water generated by the shopping center. The 2007 Addendum for Phase lb used a more conservative water demand factor of 406.25 gallons per day per thousand square feet for"shopping center"uses although this factor is not representative of the Project Site since a shopping center is typically much smaller than a regional center or super regional center and typically is designed as an outdoor shopping center with a smaller percentage of anchors. As shown in the utility tables provided in Appendix B, use of this "shopping center" factor from the Addendum results in a water City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 26 Environmental Checklist Form demand of approximately 46,719 gallons per day while use of the more appropriate "regional mall" factor results in wastewater generation of approximately 21,563 n addition, as shown in the comparison tables provided in Appendix B, gallons per to apply, ly CSDLAC's separate commercial "retail store" and "restaurant" factors (even one were though these here separate factors do not apply to regional shopping center uses and would overstate estimate of wastewater generation) to the 85,000 square feet of retail uses and the 30,000 the square feet of restaurant uses, the resulting water demand estimate would be 48,125 e per day, similar to that identified in the Addendum and Certified EIR. As described gallons per accounted for in the water demand generated by all of these factors are the cnu numerous water conservation features that have been implemented within Westfield Santa Anita to conserve water and reduce wastewater generation. Based on the above, the proposed modification Phase 1 b would not result in any impacts associated with water supplies to infrastructure. Such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts set forth in or water Addendum. 2007 With regard to stormwater infrastructure, the proposed modifications would not result in new building area. Rather, modifications would be limited to to Phase 1b improvements in and around existing buildings that would not change the amount o f impervious surfaces or drainage patterns. Thus, no impacts to drainage infrastructure would occur and the conclusions in the 2007 Addendum regarding drainage infrastructure would not be affected. With regard to the analysis of solid waste, the 2007 Addendum used the California Integrated Waste Management Board's (now referred to as CalRecycle) generation o "Shopping Center" uses, which accounts for retail and restaurant uses. As shown for Appendix B, use of this factor generates 525 tons of solid waste per year. Using CaIR yc 's separate generation rates for retail and restaurant uses instead of the shopping ecr rate e would actually result in a reduction in anticipated solid waste . g center rate planning purposes, CalRecycle has provided various rates includingar rate'of 0.006 cpoy, for per square foot per day for commercial retail uses and a rate of 0.005 pounds per square foot per day for restaurant uses.3 Applying these factors to the 85,000 square feet of retail uses and 30,000 square feet or restaurant uses results in approximately 120 tons per year of solid waste or approximately 405 tons per year less than generated using the "shopping center" factor used in the Addendum. In addition, based on CIWMB's recent disposal prate,centeh accounts for diversion and recycling, Phase 1 b would dispose of approximately 423 which year of solid waste or approximately 102 tons less than calculated using the "shopping tons per factor. In addition, the mitigation measures set forth in the Addendum and Certified IR that require incorporation of storage and collection recyclables into the project design, recycling thof various materials, and collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts would continue to be implemented. Thus, the proposed modification to Phase 1 b to p rovid p e 3 CalRecycle.Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates.Available at: httpJ/www.cis vmb.ca.gov/WasteChar/WasteGenRates/,accessed September 19, 2011. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Matrix Environmental Santa Anita October 2011 Page 27 Environmental Checklist Form additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would not result in an increase in the estimated amount of solid waste generated by the shopping center. Therefore, the proposed modification to Phase 1 b would not result in an increase in solid waste generation when compared with the estimated generation for Phase 1 b set forth in the 2007 Addendum. The proposed modification to Phase 1b to provide additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would result in a negligible increase in the demand for electricity. Specifically, based on a restaurant factor of 47.45 kilowatt hours per square foot per year and a retail factor of 13.55 kilowatt hours per square foot per year, the proposed modification would generate a net increase of approximately 678,000 kilowatt hours per year However, it is expected that Southern California Edison (SCE) would have sufficient capacity to provide for this increase. Westfield would also continue to comply with regulatory requirements regarding energy conservation. Thus, impacts associated with the use of electricity would continue to be less than significant and the impact conclusion associated with electricity would be consistent with that set forth in the 2007 Addendum. SCAQMD sets forth a factor of 2.9 cubic feet per square foot per month to calculate the demand for natural gas for both retail and shopping center uses. Thus, conversion of retail uses to restaurant uses would not change the calculated demand for natural gas generated by the proposed modification to Phase 1 b. In addition, the demand for natural gas with implementation of the Phase 1 b modification would be well below the conservative demand estimate set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Furthermore, per the 2007 Addendum, the Southern California Gas Company indicated that existing mains would be able to serve the entire Project approved in the Certified EIR. Thus, no impacts associated with natural gas would occur and the estimated calculation of natural gas would be well within that set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVIII. 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 City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 28 Environmental Checklist Form Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No considerable"means that the incremental effects of a Impact incorporated Impact Impact 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? Less Than Significant impact a—c. As discussed above in the responses to Questions IV. Biological Resources and V. Cultural Resources, the proposed modification lb would not result in any impacts to biological or cultural resources. Moreover, as the to Phase 1b modification would be implemented entirely within existing buildings and proposed uses would be consistent with existing regional mall uses within Westfield Santa Anita, no significant impacts would occur with respect to any other environmental issue areas. Furthermore, all related projects would be subject to environmental review on a project by project basis with mitigation measures implemented as necessary and feasible to reduce any potential significant impacts. Thus, implementation of the Project together with related projects would not result in cumulative impacts. The Phase 1 b modification to provide up to an additional 20,941 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of up to 20,941 square feet of existing retail space would also be within the envelope of the cumulative impacts evaluated i n the 2007 Addendum. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the responses above, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. In addition, the Phase 1 modification would not result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. e City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental October 2011 Page 29 i O ii '111D en N c0) m iD 6� '® 0 C O NI_ s C . \ co U i c ,, to , . _ , /IS/ \ c0 f I= i �hfYh�t5ftYt �fHHf/'YfHy� '//,,,, \ itii:if..11 : --] aw\-\ wwwwoommo .. 00.1.5 ' ......\ hilliliffi "\""""■"""‘" -,-- laRk\k‘WM% ill 1,yi . ' -'41;\ ‘,,SSI'MOSS 411 III ,C7-. /4, A ...2,...!.....•'Adz,. , �I I- ■TWW11 I i 1 (/H/fH/h�fH1fY Ni. i 1 I `� ' ! • ,,' z ,"•'� I 1 iuhj,k I , ■', 1 iiNNW f'- _ rr— . ■ _ III tai jilt c I ..,,.: , v�� �. H+H{HHfH{{f}}}Ey fir. • /` ; HE willo -- ::-••• -'''''''''- - . c 9 i i V O.V's'si SV-gry...1.S\STU Sold■I■r\LODZ Ins=Au '• , • . . . .. . ... • ' • . . . . ., : --- . •••••:0,g .:47,7" jl!'17S: . ••,-, . , Y • : . ..tr, In • , • en . . (1.D ••• . • ,. ....IsedEs 8- • isooss 331fld S,N : - S21208V.08 21,. ' ..• 1 VhONOS SINVF1RIM• •4 -% .,11111 ' IQ ..-.• CD ' - .:•.: • : mit vcut . (1-.01 11. : : • . , .C.):"• ...-.• • : . . . : . : . , •• . . . .. -.. . . . . . : . .. • 0 t 0- • sms! ' -;'i rg : • : . m, ‘.f .• ..,:i , .64 xml.qaoei39.,,ivm,noa. • 6 6 §- • - ' 0,.. • 22_: ;T. .•1 1 tt'',1'.,....„..,,..,, _ , iSOOL 01.?4, .....,. ,i,,... ..,..,n,...--..„1, .•...A Va3AV/Me NO1VS n : ‘... • . • Ji • 31,1,,,.';.Ek,...-'0.,;:f., ,•_ . •-• 0 • •'.,-•-•,....-..,-.4;7,,,... : , • ' Jezzt I %-t- , 1 . . • ,,, . '''';',',.7,'.4.-4.',;.."-',:::::;:!,';'' •. AN‘:.'griliRlseHrfill @ h. l'151 lir l'' :12 il 0 .....4.. ,,t . 1.••,,..ji: ,..,..4„,. ;-.....T., • . .: • • L-6 .••10 . . • • 0 ' 'if --' • . . 1st 61..1. ,T .!4• g.:•-1'1.".1? : s'-' ". ' , !I , ,, ' tf h , / -7-::.,..,....„ . .. . . . - '. :I? . a„,,,. .0,.c , v, PctilsZ44Z 11: atin Ill . : - • „14 44 t• .111r1 0 .. ...: . . .. ., •■•• - .; ...,_-■14041 b : .01-,09 :7 30I'WHOX3 1 NO13210.1 . 1.9.JaSSIZ 1? gii,VhOS a . 1:3,:.•T,••.• •• ..... . , . ...1,..;oz . . .:. • . . . ... ';'.. •' - t,1 learpr !oil ii . • arIMIIIMMInpi " NI ' P • . ,. . , -„.....,............. . .,,,-:. ... ■ --,- -• : voinsys . 3 . ,.- Havoo 2 A ....... ..,-.. .......'......... I ''''''W. 'h . . ■f i •-.. 2 In I? * ' 1-2 : .t.-.06 • i 10.2 4t6 4.) • r . .. ,' r . . . .4 • 2-.s. •• 4 bi .,,,.•-1 ''-. %' uir / , 4 • .: isosttg .. - Kv ..• lam? - OW'' ,.....„P ' , • .,..--.--,u 4 S1VTILN30S3 ki.0 • • ' .•,' 17 .....S.is0a0 4 x' i anm14 . •• /VNVAV V Y , 2134/V31 • 11' t .4' V, ','-,',• ",,:'.....,'.,`,-,:. `''' etM i "' - 7- •' 1111 3OVOOM"WOO h . . . .. - .. . 0 Nele, Di t.....--'-',.!,. 1- ..,.- -",_ ,-.::.+,6i■'1,- - ,'., : g N011.V21340 A h 0 . ., pi, ....,./„,;;• ... . ,'," 5 .."" '.''I•••• % : gill.1 11 • sno. . : ..... il...,,,,..... •S', . .9? * ---X 14 WOMM/1111.1111111111111111116!--‘b * Xxf "'t 'mj 2S013 u) A ,.,,*vi ' P. i 0 . , I .: ..........., . -op , , " •.. LT' 57-1.3 li i , a" ' ail istlf t ...:. .1 ' "4:-.•• ...,i2.. 12 oprovi moo D g 0 " . . ; , _., 1 ........„.....:A 4\ No, . < n .1,- < 14 < CO I.- r 1% 1... LIJ co 4,,,,• h re ' 4) re U.1 >1 1r ■ it, 4 „,.,,,,,•.:•:::::.::::.:..:r1 Z=........ . . . .•■■■■.. tiej•.g .Z ' .CNI. P C) QS tr ii . . D r•-)•- al to 4? • V.......„...:9., .. .. . ..1.. 11' / 1 lig .7 ,,..A• :7L..”, I i.11, . .. .. i la ir . : ‘? . • • g : 14 •,,. C) ' . -- .'''''., . . ia .44444p .. . 1., . • - ce big.7; ' liWii I 0 _. la _ U• IF ,L --.'-..: • :.. la .. '