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
.. '