Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 3, 2007~ CITY OF ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ^~~ =~ REGULAR MEETING ~ . TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007 ' AGENDA 6:00 p.m. Location: City Council Chamber Conference Room, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Roger Chandler, Mayor/Agency Chair Mickey Segal, Mayor Pro Tem/Agency Vice Chair Peter Amundson, Council/Agency Member Robert Harbicht, Council/Agency Member John Wuo, Council/Agency Member STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a"Public Comments" card availahle in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the Closed Session/Study Session. -~ In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City CouricillRedevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. STUDY SESSION a. Report and discussion to authorize the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for the water, sewer and refuse rates including a proposed public hearing at the June 19, 2007 City Council Meeting. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chamber RECONVENE CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION iNVOCATION Reverend Darwin Ng, Police Department Chaplain - First Evangelical Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Amundson, Harbicht, Segal, Wuo and Chandler REPORT FROM CI7Y ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION ITEMS ~ SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AN~ WAIVE THE READING IN FULL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Presentation of Certificate to Tim Spicer, 2006-2007 Outstanding School Crossing Guard of the Year for City of Arcadia. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the.proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. CITY COUNCIL 1TEMS: a. YYC~71 rICLV J/11V I/1 /11V11/'i IVI/1LL - r~lf1JC 1O Recommended Action: Approve the Addendum to the EIR; approve ADR 05-26 subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report or as amended by the City Councii, and adopt the following Resolutions: PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a"Public Comments" card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed fortn should be submitted to the City CIerWAgency Secretary prior to the start of the Closed Session/Study Session. In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City Council/Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK PHASE 1 B OF THE EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA. Recommended Action: Adopt Recommended Action: Adopt 2. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MARCH 20, 2007. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MARCH 20; 2007. Recommended Action: Approve c. d. SATURDAY APRIL 7, 2007. Recommended Action: Approve e. g. RESOLUTION NO. 6563 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE h. APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO A PURCHASE ORDER WITH EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT OF $7.000. Recommended Action: Approve Recommended Action: Approve RESOLUTION NO. 6560 ESTABLISHING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION. Recommended Action: Adopt COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS. Recommended Action: Adopt Recommended Action:. Approve ~: 3. CITY MANAGER a. WAIVE THE FORMAL BIO PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH INTER- b. .. c. ADJOURNMENT The City Council/Redevelopment Agency will adjourn this meeting in memory of Adam Jason Rosema to an adjoumed regular meeting, Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Masonic Center, 50 West Duarte Road, Arcadia. At this continued regular meeting the following matters will be discussed and acted on and a public hearing will be conducted for purposes of considering the following matters: APPLICATIONS: Specific Plan (SP 05-01) "The Shops at Santa Anita" project at the Santa Anita Park Racetrack (285 W. Huntington Drive) The Specific Plan includes the following: 1. Development of an 829,250 square foot (sfl commercial, retail and office development on the southern parking lot of the Santa Anita Park Racetrack (804,250 sf of retail/commercial uses and 25,000 sf of office uses); 2. Relocation of the existing Saddling Bam in the Paddock Gardens to the west of the Kingsbury Memorial Fountain and demolition of the south ticket gates; 3. Adaptive reuse of the western portion of the historic Santa Anita Park grandstand to construct an approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center within the grandstand area; 4. A 1.4 acre landscaped open space area linking the existing Paddock Gardens with the proposed new commercial, retail and office center; 5. 'A 7.5-acre landscaped open space area, including a 3.5-acre water feature, to be located at the southern end of the property; 6. Improvements to vehicle and pedestria~ access, parking, infrastructure and other ancillary facilities throughout the property as well as off site; and 7. A new wireless electric trolley traveling on fixed rails between the Paddock Gardens at the north end of Main Street and the water feature and promenade at the south end of Main Street. Recommended Action: Approve Recommended Action: Approve , Recommended Action: Provide Direction Generai Plan Amendment (GP 05-01) 1. To amend the land use designation in the General Plan for the entire racetrack property from "Horse Racing" and "Commercial" to "Specific Plan - Santa Anita (SP-SA)". 2. To amend the General Plan language to reflect the nature of the development anticipated in the Specific Plan and to reflect and further the implementation of the 1996 General Plan update. 3. To amend language regarding view protection to ensure that development anticipated in the Specific Plan and encouraged by other language in the General Plan can be located where envisioned. Zone Change (ZC 05-04) . The proposal will create new zoning designations for the entire 304 acres of Santa Anita Park that reflect the Specific Plan (SP). The Project area will include three distinct zoning categories including SP-S-1 (Special Use - horse racing), SP-R-1 (Single-Family) and a new category SP-CE (Commercial Entertainment) that will be located in the southerly 85 acres of the site. The area to be zoned CE is consistent with the 85 ac~es designated in the General Plan as "Commercial". Architectural Design Review Consideration of the conceptual architectural design of the proposed development as set forth in the Shops at Santa Anita Architectural Design Review packet and the Design Guidelines packet. Development Agreement A Development Agreement will be considered for the commercial portion of the project comprised of approximately 829,250 square feet (s~. APPLICANT: Caruso Property Management ENVIRONMENTAL Final Environmental Impact Report DOCUMENT: DATE AND HOUR OF PUBLIC HEARING: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: Arcadia Masonic Center (adjacent to the Arcadia Library) 50 West Duarte Road, Arcadia, California PURSUANT TO THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, PERSONS WITH A DISABILITY WHO REQUIRE A DISABILITY-RELATED MODIFICATION OR ACCOMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN A MEETING, INCLUDING AUXILIARY AIDS OR SERVICES, MAY REQUEST SUCH MODIFICATION OR ACCOMODATION FROM THE CITY CLERK AT (626) 574-5455. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE CITY TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ASSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MEETING. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING ANNOTATED AGENDA APRIL 3, 20U7 STUDY SESSION RepoR and discussion to authorize the Public Works Services NO REPORTABLE Department to follow Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for the ACTION WAS water, sewer and refuse rates including a proposed public hearing at TAKEN the June 19, 2007 City Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW N0. ADR 2005-26 EXPANSION CONTINUED TO OF WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL - PHASE 1B A FUTURE DATE RESOLUTION NO. 6561 APPROVING THE EIR ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND FINDINGS BASED UPON THE EIR ADDENDUM FOR ARCHIl'ECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005-026 ON PHASE 16 OF THE EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA. RESOLUTION NO. 6562 APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005-026 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA (PHASE 16) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2007. APPROVED 4-0 (Harbicht, Abstain) CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20, 2007. APPROVED 4-0 (Harbicht, Abstain) c. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT APPROVED WITH CEDAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE NEW 5-0 WASH RACK AT THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $49,500. d. WAIVE EXPENSES RELATED TO TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES APPROVED FOR THE THIRTEENTH ANNUAL SANTA ANITA DERBY DAY 5K 5- 0 TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, APRIL 7, 2007. e. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT APPROVED TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KEYSER 5- 0 MARSTON ASSOCIATES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY SERVICES FOR AN ADDITIONAL $11,000 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $25,000. f. RESOLUTION NO. 6560 ESTABLISHING DATE, TIME AND TABLED LOCATION FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION. g. RESOLUTION NO. 6563 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADOPTED EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE 5-0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS. h. AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE UTILIZING LEGAL SERVICES APPROVED FOR PERSONNEL RELATED MATTERS WITH ATKINSON, 5-0 ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD AND ROMO. APPROVE A CHANGE ORDER TO A PURCHASE ORDER WITH APPROVED EXPRESS TEMPORARY SERVICES FOR TEMPORARY CLERICAL 5- 0 SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT OF $7,000. 3. CITY MANAGER a. WAIVE THE FORMAL BID PROCESS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY APPROVED MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5- 0 AGREEMENT WITH INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FROM APRIL 15, 2007, TO APRIL 14, 2008, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $208,060.16. b. AUTHORIZE THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO APPROVED FOLLOW PROPOSITION 218 BALLQTING PROCEDURES FOR 5- 0 THE CONSIDERATION OF OR REJECTION OF PROPOSED INCREASE OF WATER, SEWER AND REFUSE RATES AND TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE 19, 2007 COUNCIL MEETING. c. APPROVE PROCEDURE AND PROTOCOL OF THE PUBLIC APPROVED HEARING FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED 4- 1 APPLICATIONS FOR "SHOPS AT SANTA ANITA." . 49:0039 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007 A Study Session of the City Council was held in the Council Chamber Conference Room, Arcadia City HaII, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California. CALL TO ORDEI2 Mayor Chandler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Harbicht, Segal, Wuo and Chandler ABSENT: None STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) None STUDY SESSION a. proposed oubiic hearina at the June 19. 2007 Citv Council Meetina. Public Works Services Director Pat Malloy discussed the "Big Horn" U.S. Supreme Court case and how it changed the way local jurisdictions are allowed to increase utility rates and how the process should be handled to insure compliance with Proposition 218 balloting procedures: He noted that if written protests against the proposed fees are presented by a majority of the property owners or tenants, as required by law, the City may not impose the rate increase. He further noted that protests must be submitted in writing to the City in order to be considered and that all rate adjustments adopted by the City since Proposition 218 was passed in 1996 must be reaffirmed. Mr. Malloy noted the City has followed the public hearing process for every rate adjustment since Proposition 218 was passed. Mr. Malloy commented that no increase in water rates are being proposed and reminded the Council that last year a water rate adjustment was deferred until the Water Master Plan update was complete. He noted that a preliminary financial analysis determined that no rate adjustment for fiscal year 2007-OS would be needed. Mr. Malloy advised that staff recommends no rate adjustment for water, only to affirm current and previous rates. Regarding Refuse Rates, Management Analyst Marie Nguyen advised that the existing agreement with Waste Management allows for an increase in refuse rates based on a formula that is a balance between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Disposal Fees. She explained that the current contract requires annual rate adjustments be calculated on the percent change from March to March of the previous year and in order to comply with Proposition 218 noticing, Waste Management has agreed to amend their contract with the City to January through December, She further explained that a proposed rate adjustment is scheduled for the June meeting and a contract amendment revising the 04-03-2007 49:0040 time period for calculating the CIP portion of the rate adjustment will be brought before the City Council. Regarding Sewer Rates, Deputy Public Works Services Director Tom Tait advised that a sewer rate increase for residential connections is being proposed and the increase is based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period January 2006 to December 2006. He noted that the proposed rate adjustment is based on the annual opereting budget, capital improvement projects as outlined in the Sewer Master Plan Update and maintenance of the $5 million dollar fund reserve. He also noted that as part of the Sewer Master Plan adopted last year, the City is in compliance with the sanitary sewer mandate. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Chandler convened the Open Session meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. INVOCATION Reverend Darwin Ng, Police Department Chaplain, First Evangelical Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council/Agency Member Amundson, Harbicht, Segal, Wuo and Chandler ABSENT: None REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Steve Deitsch announced that the City Council met in Study Session to receive a report from staff regarding Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for water, sewer and refuse rates. He also announced that further discussion on this item is listed under 3b on the posted agenda. No reportable action was taken. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Amundson, seconded by Council/Agency Member Segal and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS a. Presentation of Certificate to Tim Spicer, 2006-2007 Outstanding School Crossing Guard of the Year for City of Arcadia. 2 04-03-2007 49:0041 Mayor Chandler announced that City Manager item 3c will be moved before the public hearing item for discussion and direction. He provided an overview of the City's current public hearing process and advised that a different approach to the public hearing process will be discussed and considered. 3. CITY MANAGER c. SANTA AN ITA." Recommended Action: Provide Direction City Manager Bill Kelly commented that staff prepared a report for direction and consideration regarding 3 alternatives for the public hearing process relating to the Wesffield and The Shops at Santa Anita hearings. Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director pon Penman provided the report regarding procedures and protocol of the public hearing process to the Specific Plan and related applications for "The Shops at Santa Anita" on April 11, 2007. He noted the options for conducting the public participation portion of the hearing given the expected attendance and advised that staff recommends a 30 minute staff presentation, followed by a 30 minute presentation by the applicant, and then open the public hearing using speaker cards. He noted the 3 options for consideration of accepting public comments as (1) normal public hearing format (2) random first come, first serve or (3) collect all cards until the hearing begins, shuffle the cards randomly regardless of which order they were submitted, once the hearing begins those cards would be placed at the bottom of the stack in the order received. He recommended that each speaker be given 3 minutes to speak followed by 15 minutes for rebuttal by the applicant who would be the last person to speak. Mr. Penman noted that speakers could not allocate any part of their 3 minutes to another speaker. A motion was made by Council Member Segal, seconded by Council Member Harbicht and carried on roll call vote to adopt the 3 minute speaker time limit and shuffle the speaker cards for the Westfield public hearing on the agenda including the April 11, 2007 public hearing. AYES: Council Member Segal, Harbicht, Amundson and Chandler NOES: Council Member Wuo PUBLIC HEARING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 2005-26 EXPANSION OF W ESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL - PHASE 1 B Recommended Action: Approve the Addendum to the EIR; approve ADR 05-26 subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report or as amended by the City Council, and adopt the following Resolutions: 04-03-2Q07 ADDENDUM FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005-026 ON PHASE 1B OF THE EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA. Recommended Action: Adopt 49:0042 Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director pon Penman presented the staff report relating to Wes~eld's application for architectural design review for the addition of approximately 100,800 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of retail shops, including 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses. Community Development Administrator Jason Kruckeberg explained the various entitlements and permits of the project including design, signage, landscaping, lighting, parking, loading, access and circulation. He noted the low building profile, architectural styles, and predominant design elements of the expansion convey good design principles. Mr. Kruckeberg commented on the Planning Commission's recommendations at its February 27, 2007 meeting regarding the Addendum to the EIR and approval of ADR 05-026 with conditions of approval. He provided the Council with background information including architectural design review and analysis, environmental analysis (CEQA), fiscal impacts, recommendations and conditions of approval. He advised the City Council that staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 6561 approving the Architectural Design Review portion of the Project and Resolution No. 6562 approving the EIR Addendum, including related CEQA findings. Following staff's presentation, the Mayor called for the applicanYs 30 minute presentation. Kenneth Wong, President of Wes~eld's US Operations made his presentation to the City Council regarding the expansion of Westfield Santa Anita Mall - Phase 1 B. He introduced his team of John Healy, Betty Duffy, Internal Westfield Design and Architecture Group, Stephanie Eyestone-Jones, Environmental Consultant with PCR Services Corporation, Pat Gibson, Tra~c Consultant with Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates and Attorney Francis Park with Park & Velayos. He presented a revenue growth chart including sales tax revenue to the City from Westfield Santa Anita since acquired in 1998 through 2009. Betty Duffy of Westfield Internal Design presented an overview of the exterior design of the "The Promenade". Stephanie Eyestone-Jones, Environmental Consultant with PCR Services Corporation provided a CEQA overview and summary of the Addendum including a detailed environmental impact summary relating to aesthetics, light and glare, air quality (construction), land-use/planning, noise, public services and transportation and traffic. She noted that responses to all comment letters were prepared and found that none of the comments raised changed any conclusions in the Addendum. Pat Gibson, Traffic Engineer with Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates for Westfield appeared to speak on the proposed traffic and circulation issues related to the mall expansion. He discussed trip generated issues, the traffic impact analysis, proposed improvements and traffic flow, including Gate 8 improvements. He concluded that there were no significant impacts to traffic, parking or surrounding neighborhoods. He noted that the study concludes that part of the conditions of approval is to fund the improvements. Mr. Wong concluded his report and urged the City Council to approve the project as recommended by staff. 4 04-03-2007 49:0043 Colleen Brennan appeared and spoke in support of the Caruso project and Measure B. Martin Blanco appeared and spoke in support of the Wesffield expansion project. Victor Ceporius appeared and spoke in opposition to the Westfield expansion project and spoke in support of The Shops at Santa Anita. Frank Griffith appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield expansion project. Pat Stewart appeared and spoke on behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters in support of the Westfield expansion project. Scott Moore appeared and read a prepared statement on behalf of the Arcadia Police Officers Association in support of the Westfield expansion project, the Caruso Project and Measure B. Mary Dougherty appeared and spoke in opposition to the Wes~eld expansion project. Ashley Gomez, Store Manager of Jannie and Jack appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield expansion project. Linda King, owner and operated Auntie Annie's Pretzel Store in the Westfield Mall, appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield expansion project. Jackson Bruce King, Old Navy, appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield expansion project. Diane Penaloza, Old Navy appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield Expansion project. Sara Danielle Houk, Hot Dog on a Stick, appeared and spoke in support of the Westfield expansion project. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council/Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council/Agency Member Harbicht, and seeing no further objection, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Rebuttal from Aoplicant: Mr. Gibson responded to issues raised during the public comment period regarding traffic. Mr. Park commented that all CEQA issues have been addressed. He noted that the design review went through 2 different environmental reviews, once in 2000 with the certified EIR and in 2007 with the Addendum. He provided an overview of the different design guidelines and noted that Westfield concurs with the staff report including the 32 conditions of approval. Mr. Park thanked City staff for their work on this project during the past 3 years. Mr. Park submitted a letter of support for the record from the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce. In response to an inquiry by Council Member Harbicht, Mr. Gibson provided information regarding trips generated and off-site parking during the construction period. 5 04-03-2007 ' \ 49:0044 Council Member Segal commented that complaints are anticipated regarding the short fall of up to 800 parking spaces during the construction period and wouid like to see a written proposal on how Westfield would deal with the short fall of those parking spaces. In response to a question raised by Mayor Chandler regarding the shortfall of parking spaces, Mr. Park confirmed that Westfield wouid provide a specific parking plan regarding the parking during construction to the City staff within 2 weeks for Council consideration. In response to a question raised by Council Member Amundson, Mr. Penman noted that concerns regarding the 800 offsite parking spaces during construction may require one of the conditions in Resolution No. 6199 to be revised since it specifically states that all parking for patrons and employees shall be provided "on site". He commented that historically parking has been offsite during holidays and has not been an issue since the offsite parking was at the race track. He agrees that a parking plan for construction is warranted since there were parking issues during the first phase of construction. Mr. Kelly confirmed that Resolution IVo. 6199 would require modi~cation to include off site parking during the construction period. Councilmember Harbicht commented that before he votes on the project, he would like to see a plan in place regarding off site parking including where the offsite parking would be proposed, how many spaces are being proposed in each of those places and a letter or signed agreement from those individuals who would be willing to provide parking spaces to Westfield for offsite parking. Council Member Wuo noted that he would like to see a detailed report regarding the proposed "drop off area" in the new phase. City Attorney Deitsch commented that Condition 5 requires a$30,000 bond or other security posted to cover a potential neighborhood impact. He further commented that regarding offsite parking, the existing code requires a binding agreement between the off site property owner and the applicant. He noted that such offsite parking typically should not displace required parking at that proposed off site location under the Arcadia Municipal Code. Council Member Harbicht noted for the record that since Westfield is working with the School District and the Gold Line regarding off site parking, he would like to see letters of intent. No other persons appeared to provide testimony on this item. Mr. Wong confirmed that a temporary parking plan would be submitted to the City within 2 weeks. He asked what the next available'tlate this matter can be brought back to the City Council after the report regarding the temporary parking plan is submitted to the City. Mr. Kelly recommended to the City Council that the meeting can be held at noon on April 17, 2007, if Wes~eld submits the required information to the City in order to meet the deadline for staff reports and agenda finalization and distribution. A motion was made by Council Member Harbicht, seconded by Council Member Segal and" carried on roll call vote to continue this item to April 17, 2007 or another date at the request of Westfield, direct staff to bring back reports regarding off site parking, drop off zone, and the $30,000 neighborhood impact issue. 6 04-03-2007 49:0045 AYES: Council Member Harbicht, Segal, Amundson, Wuo, and Chandier NOES: None THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AT 10:30 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 10:40 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) None REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK Council Member Wuo announced that this week is spring break. He commented on 2 homes in Diamond Bar that was growing marijuana, and congratulated former Mayor Gary Kovacic who was named Citizen of the Year at the Chamber dinner last week. Council Member Harbicht commented about a man found lying on the grass by the police department and subsequently arrested for being drunk as noted in the police weekly report. Council Member Amundson reminded citizens that it is spring break and the kids are out and everyone should be extra careful while driving. He also wished everyone a Happy Easter. Council Member Segal announced the Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run and Walk on Saturday, April 7, 2007. He commented the SK is a team effort between Santa Anita Park, Methodist Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita and 200 volunteers from Arcadia High School with proceeds going to Arcadia High School Boosters Club and the Arcadia Historical Museum. He announced that Mayor Chandler will shoot the starting gun at 7:45 a.m. for the master runners over 40 and the open race for runners and walkers at 8:15 a.m., and the kid's race will begin at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Segal encouraged everyone to participate. Mayor Chandler announced that tickets are available for the community event on Friday, April 13, 2007. He also announced that Lance Corporal Sanderson will be the guest speaker. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. APPROVE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MARCH 20. 2007. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. APPROVE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. MARCH 20, 2007. Recommended Action: Approve c. THE PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $49.500. Recommended Action: Aqqrove d. SATURDAY. APRIL 7. 2007. Recommended Action: Approve 04-03-2007 49:0046 e. AUTHORIZE THE CIN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KEYSER MARSTON Approve ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6560 ESTABLISHING DATE, TIME AND Action: Adopt g. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6563 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE SOUTHERN h. Council Member Wuo asked if item (f) can wait until June. He noted that the Arcadia Beautiful Commission meets more than proposed in the Resolution. City Manager Kelly responded that there is no resolution authorizing the Arcadia Beautiful Commission to meet at any specific time and place and explained that the resolution will clear up legal issues that have been raised. Mr. Kelly noted that this resolution is consistent with major projects assigned to the Commission with room for special meetings, if necessary. Council Member Wuo requested that this item be pulled for discussion. A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council/Agency Member Harbicht, and caRied on roll call vote to approve the Consent Calendar items 2a through 2e and 2h through 2i on the City Council/Agency Consent Calendars. AYES: Council/Agency Members Segal, Harbicht, Wuo, Amundson and Chandler NOES: None ABSTAIN: Council/Agency Member Harbicht (2a and 2b) It was the consensus of the City Council to table item 2f to a future meeting. 04-03-2007 Recommended Action: Adopt Recommended Action: Approve 49:0047 3. CITY MANAGER a. Approve Police Chief Bo6 Sanderson reported that due to the lack of sworn personnel, enforcing parking issues have declined. He noted that Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. contracts with several surrounding cities for parking enforcement. He also noted that Inter-Con Security Systems is responsible for the hiring, training, scheduling and personnel related issues. He advised that the City's financial obligation would be $208,060.16 and recommends the City Council waive the formal bid process and authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems for parking enforcement services. A motion was made by Council Member Wuo, seconded by Council Member Segal and carried on roll call vote to waive the formal bid process and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. for Parking Enforcement Services from April 16, 2007, to April 15, 2008, for an amount not to exceed $208,060.16. AYES: Council Members Wuo, Segal, Harbicht, Amundson and Chandler NOES: None b. Public Works Services Director Pat Malloy presented the staff report regarding the proposed increase of water, sewer and refuse rates. He noted that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling changed the way local jurisdictions can increase utility rates and explained how this process is handled to insure compliance with Proposition 218 balloting procedures, public hearing notice requirements and written protests of the fees. He further noted that public hearing notices will be sent to over 16,000 property owners 45 days prior to the public hearing. Mr. Malloy noted that after an analysis of the ten-year projection of the water fund balance, staff recommended deferring an adjustment of water rates until next year pending the completion of the update of the Water Master Plan. He further noted that as part of the protest process, the property owner must reaffirm each rate adjustment adopted since Proposition 218 was implemented in 1996, as well as rates established for sewer and refuse. ~ Mr. Malloy noted that Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Inc. requested the City to adjust the service rates for refuse/recycling collection to reflect the change in Consumer Price Index (CIP) from the period of January 2006 to December 2006. He further noted cost of living went up from last year approximately 4% according to the formula and we are looking at a 4.45% rate adjustment. 04-03-2007 Recommended Action: Approve 49:0048 Mr. Malloy commented that staff recommends a 5% cost of living adjustment per year for sewer rates. He noted that the current sewer rate is $3.51 and will increase to $3.65 for a single family home. Mr. Malloy recommended that the City Council maintain the current water rates for the next year, and authorize Public Work Services Department to (a) follow Proposition 218 bailoting procedures for the increase of sewer and refuse rates (b) reaffirm the previous water, sewer and refuse rate adjustments set since 1996, conduct a public hearing at the June 19, 2007 City Council meeting, direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions adopting rate increases for fiscal year 2007-2008 and affirm previous utility rates set since 1996 and (c) prepare a refuse contract amendment changing the time period for calculating the CPI portion of the annual rate adjustment for refuse rates. A motion was made by Council/Agency Member Segal, seconded by Council/Agency Member Harbicht, and carried on roil call vote to maintain the current water rate structure for next year; authorize the Public Works Services Department to: (1) follow Proposition 218 balloting procedures for the increase of sewer and refuse rates and conduct a pubic hearing at the June 19, 2007 Council Meeting; (2) prepare resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal year 2007-OS; and (3) prepare a refuse contract amendment changing the time period for calculating the CPI portion of the annual rate adjustment. AYES: Council Members Segal, Harbicht, Amundson, Wuo and Chandler NOES: None ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. The City Council/Redevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting in memory of Suzanne Marie Jeffs, Maureen Mascott, Adam Jason Rosema and Gary Dorn to April 11, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Masonic Center, 50 West Duarte Road, Arcadia. James H. Barrows, City Clerk ~ ~~l ~f ~~"y,~n' ~ By: Lisa Mussenden Chief Deputy City Clerk 10 04-03-2007 , ' ~ 'n ,..~.;... ~~~~,~sN~~`' STAFF REPORT Development Services Department April 3, 2007 T0: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Dir.~ By: Jason Kruckeberg, Community Development AdministratorSc.K Corkran Nicholson, Planning Seroices Manager SUBJECT: Architectural Desiqn Review No 05-026 for the expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall Phase 1b and the associated . _ .... . _ • ----._~ i~..,....a o...,.,rt Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Westfield LLC has submitted an application 05-026) for the addition of approximately 10 Area (GLA) of retail shops, including 10,000 addition is referred to as Phase 1b'. for architectural design review (ADR J,800 square feet of Gross Leasable square feet of restaurant uses. This Phase 1 b will be located in the southwest quadrant of the property south of Nordstrom and west of Macy's. According to the applicant, the primary purpose of Phase 1 b is to expand the specialty retail sector of the shopping center by providing a community and pedestrian-oriented shopping area with groupings of single-story retail buildings. The retail improvements would consist of five (5) blocks of retail buildings connected by an open-air landscaped promenade most of which would be buffered on all sides by the buildings. The outdoor open space may also include outdoor patio areas for the restaurants. Buiiding heights will be approximately 25 feet above the finished floor with some vertical architectural elements up to 50 feet in height. Proposed architectural materials, colors and landscaping would complement the existing shopping center. Signage would be integrated into the ' The Addendum to the 200D Environmental Impact Report refers to a total Gross Leasable Area of 115,000 square feet proposed. This figure is derived by using a definition of Gross Leasable Area provided by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This figure is NOT, however, based on the definition of Gross Leasable Area adopted by the City along with the Westfield Environmental Impact Report in 2000. Using the adopted City definition, the Gross Leasable Area requested as a part of Phase t b is 100,800 square feet. As a result, this is the number we refer to in the Staff Report. All of the numbers in the Addendum are based on the ULI definition, which is a more conservative definition. Wherever relevant within the Staff ReQort, only the City number for gross leasable area is provided for clarity. ,,.~°~ t_,-~"' ~'~ ~~ 1 t`~ ~,~, i': ~:, architecture of the buildings and would be compatible with the existing shopping center signage. Pedestrian access from the retail level to the existing shopping center would be provided to the east via new entrances to Macy's and an existing mall entrance and to the north via the existing Nordstrom entrance. Two levels of parking would be located below the retail uses; one level would be developed partially at grade and the second level would be entirely subterranean. Both parking levels would generally appear below grade due to the topography of the site. The two new parking levels would provide 783 parking spaces for a total on-site parking supply of 6,204 spaces. A semi-circular entry plaza located to the immediate west of Phase 1 b would allow for the drop-off and pick-up of shopping center patrons. ~ To meet the reguirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the applicant submitted an Addendum to the 2000 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion (State Ciearinghouse No. 1999121063). The Planning Commission at its February 27, 2007 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council acceptance of the Addendum to the EIR and approval of ADR 05-026 with the conditions of approval, as revised by the Planning Commission and City Attorney. The Staff has prepared two Resolutions for the City Council that reflect approval of the proposed project: Resolution #6561 details approval of the Architectural Design Review portion of the Project and Resolution #6562 details acceptance of the Addendum to the EIR, including the related CEQA findings. In order to facilitate review of this project, the staff report has been organized into the following sections: Section 1 Background Information (page no. 4) Section 2 Architectural Design Review Proposal and Analysis (page no. 7) Section 3 Environmental Impact Analysis - Addendum 5ummary (page no. 14) Section 4 Fiscal Impacts (page no. 23) Section 5 Recommendation and Conditions of Approvai (page no. 24) Section 6 City Council Action and Resolutions Nos. 6561 and 6562 (page no. 33) ADR OS-026 Page 2 5ection 7 Attachments (page no. 34) Along with the Staff Report, under separate cover, the City has provided the comments received from the public on the project as well as the City's responses to those comments. Public comments include a letter received on February 27, 2007 from Patricia L. Glaser of Christensen, Glaser, Fink, Jacobs, Weil & Shapiro, LLP on behalf of The Turf Club and Santa Anita Companies, Inc. The letter incorporates by reference an earlier letter sent from Caruso Property Management dated February 6, 2007. Both of these letters are reproduced in the package along with the responses to comments raised in the letters. ADR 05-026 Page 3 SECTION 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Westfield Santa Anita (previousiy known as Santa Anita Fashion Park and Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita) opened to the public in 1974. Westfield purchased the mall in September 1998. The site consists of 79.11 acres and is developed with an enclosed regional shopping center and related parking. The property is zoned C-2 & D and C-2 D& H8 and the General Plan designation is Commercial. The "D" is a design overlay specifically addressing design, setbacks and architectural issues. The "H8" definition ailows for up to 85 feet in height. In June 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003) and Text Amendment (T.A. 99-006) to allow for an expansion of up to 600,000 sq. ft. of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) as well as revisions to the existing performance standards and design guidelines (existing Resolution No. 4185). The associated Environmental Impact Report certified for the project ~(Certified EIR) described a total GLA of 1,522,450 sq. ft. foliowing total buildout. Neither architectural elevations nor a site plan were submitted with the applications. These were to be submitted at a future date for staff, Planning Commission and City Council review through the City's Architectural Design Review process. The applicanYs proposal in 1999 included: Reconfiguring the C-2 & D(General Commercial and Design Overlay and C-2 & D H8 (General Commercial with a Design And High-Rise Overlay) zoning boundaries to incorporate the expansion of the mall buildings to the east to allow up to a 600,000 sq. ft. (GLA) expansion to the Wes~eld Santa Anita Mali. The original proposal was for a"major open air" expansion to include the addition of new tenants and land use categories not currently located in the mall. 2. Amending the City General Plan Land Use designation to increase the maximum floor area ratio allowed at the WestField Santa Anita mall from .40 to .50 based on GLA. 3. Adding two (2) 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant pads, located at the northwest corner of the site along Baldwin Avenue. 4. Potential future expansion to the west. 5. Possible multi-level parking structure(s) on the east side of the existing mall within the building envelope. Additional parking spaces would be added as necessary by a combination of restriping existing parking areas and/or the addition of parking structures. ADR 05-026 Page 4 ~ 6. A text amendment (T.A. 99-006), amending the parking requirements from 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. modified gross floor area to 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area and adding a definition for Gross Leasable Area (GLA). 7. Establishing new design regulations for Westfield Santa Anita by rescinding Resolution 4185 and adopting new guidelines. The City Council on September 5, 2000 adopted Resolution No. 6197 certifying the Final EIR and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation and Monitoring Program for the proposed expansion. The Council also adopted Resolution No. 6198 amending the General Plan Land Use designation to inc~ease the maximum floor area ratio from .40 to .50 (based on GLA) for Westfield Santa Anita. On October 3, 2000 the Council also adopted the following ordinances and resolutions to further carry out the project: . Ordinance No. 2136, reconfiguring the C-2 & D(General Commercial and Design Overlay and C-2 & D H8 (General Commercial with a Design And High-Rise Overlay) zoning boundaries to incorporate the new building envelope to allow up to a 600,000 sq. ft. expansion (GLA) to the Westfield Mall; and . Ordinance No. 2135, Amending the parking requirements for Regional Shopping Centers and adding a definition for Gross Leasable Area (GLA); and . Resolution No. 6199, Rescinding Resolution 4185 and implementing tfie provisions for the "D" Architectural Design Zone overtay and establishing new design guidelines for the site, including a list of permitted uses and uses allowed by Conditional Use Permit and setting forth a process for Architectural Design Review. Condition 3 of Resolution No. 6199 states: "Any and all preliminarv site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs for development on the PropeRy shall be submitted to the Development Services Department of the City. Said plans shall be subject to design review and recommendation by the Planning Commission following a public hearing, and following its receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, then design review and approval, disapproval or modification by the City Council following a public hearing..." ADR 05-026 Page 5 Previousiv Constructed Phase 1A In accordance with Condition 3 of Resolution No. 6199, in 2001 Westfield submitted Architectural Design Review application ADR 01-01 for the retail expansion and a parking structure to accommodate 1,220 vehictes. This represented the first phase of the expansion discussed in the 2000 Certified EIR (Phase 1a). This initial proposal included an expansion at the northeast quadrant of the mall extending from the existing mall entrance between Robinsons-May and JC Penney. The parking structure was proposed to be attached to and north of the expansion area. Projected uses included life-style type tenants (home furnishings, bath and linen store, etc.), general retail and restaurants. This proposal did not include a theater. Partially as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, two (2) of the proposed new tenants in the project withdrew and Westfield advised that their expansion was being placed on hold while they explored alterative tenants that might result in reconfiguration of the expansion plans. In February 2002, Westfield submitted revised plans for Phase 1a as Architectural Design Review 02-09. The proposed plans were similar in design to the previously approved project; however, some of the uses changed. The revised plans included a multi-sc~een theater, restaurants and retail tenants including a bookstore, sporting goods store and entertainment uses. The plans provided for 1,147 new surface parking spaces, 207 roof parking spaces and 630 spaces in a parking structure located at the northeast portion of the site, for a total of 5,759 spaces. The plan also enclosed more of the area than originally contemplated by Westfield in 2000. In September of 2002, the plans were revised again by WestField and submitted as ADR 02-61. The major change to the revised plans was the inclusion of a grade plus one level parking structure (Parking Structure A) proposed south of Robinson's May and northeast of Macy's. This structure was in addition to the proposed grade plus three level structure (Parking Structure B) located northeast of the expansion. In addition a 5,400 sq. ft. auto center was proposed to be located at the northeasterly corner of the site to repiace the existing 17,700 sq.'ft. JC Penney TBA (tire, battery and accessory) building that would be removed as part of the expansion. All of the iterations listed above were approved by the City Council. The final revised design was approved by the City Council on October 15, 2002 and Phase 1a opened on October 1, 2004. ADR 05-026 Page 6 SECTION 2 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS Overview of the proqosed Phase 1 b proiect Westfield's Phase 1 b mall expansion project proposal, if approved, would expand the specialty retail sector of the mall by adding an additional 100,800 sq. ft. of gross leasable area (GLA) to the southwest portion of the existing mall facility, as shown on Sheet 3 of the Design Review package submitted. Five groupings of single-story retail buildings connected by an open air landscaped promenade are proposed above two levels of parking, which would be integrated with existing mall structures, including the Nordstrom's building to the north and the Macy's building to the east. Pedestrian access from the proposed retail level to the existing mall would be provided to the east through a new entrance to Macy's and an existing mall entrance, and to the north by the existing Nordstrom entrance. Desian Elements Proposed architectural materials and colors will complement the existing mall structures, and would consist of light-colored smooth plaster accented with warm colors of natural wood, stone, painted metal storefronts and slate accented roofing. The architecture will be articulated with elements such as a rustic stone base, metal and wood canopies; and shaded arcades. The outdoor promenade will have a water element, fireplace feature, shaded seating areas, and a maximum of three (3) kiosks. Each kiosk is designated on plan Sheet 5 as a"pavilion" and would occupy an area of 150 sq. ft. In addition, an iconic tower, reminiscent of early 20th century hacienda courtyards, is included within the main courtyard area, as shown on the submitted Conceptual Interior Court Perspectives (Sheets 7.1 and 7.2). According to the applicant, the intent is to reference the past while providing a more contemporary ambience. Building heights would be approximately 25 feet with certain architectural features up to approximately 50 feet above the finished floor level (e.g., the abovementioned tower element would be approximately 50 feet in height). Such heights would be consistent with the elevations of the existing mall structures, and substantially less than the 85-foot maximum height allowed under the site's current H8 overlay zone. The mall's existing Center Court skylight is the highest on-site structure at approximately 83 feet above the finished floor level. Siqnaqe The submitted plans include a conceptual interior signage proposal that provides for several different types of creative signs including: fa~ade mounted blade signs, awning signage, internally or externally lit signage, backlit channel letters, ADR 05-026 Page 7 and ambient-lit pin signage. All of the proposed signage would be in accordance with the applicable sign provisions of Resolution No. 6199. However, one of the issues reviewed by staff is whether any new sign types at the Westfield mall would have to comply with the provisions of Measure N. This initiative that was approved by the voters on November 8, 2006, specifically states: "Signage proposed in areas zoned Mixed Use, Horse Racing or Special Use under either the General Plan or the Municipal Code shall be limited to sign types specifically permitted under the Municipal Code as commercial (e.g. C-O, G1, G2, C-3, C-M, GC, CPD-1 and CBD zones). All Specific Plans and Development Agreements between the City and any developer shall conform to and be consistent with the Arcadia Municipal Code sign ordinances in effect at the time a Specific Plan or a Development Agreement is adopted". This language makes it clear that Measure N applies only to the Racetrack property (or any other property designated by the General Plan or Municipel Code as mixed use or special use). In addition, Measure N applies to Specific Plans and Development Agreements, neither of which is proposed as part of the Phase 1 b project. Beyond this, the conceptual signage proposed for Phase 1 b conforms to and is consistent with the signage requirements in effect for the Westfield property under the overlay resolutions adopted in 2000. However, during the campaign process for Measure N, literature distributed by Westfield stated, "Measure N is a safeguard that Arcadia's strict sign ordinances will apply to all of Arcadia's businesses - including Westfield Santa Anita." Despite what this campaign literature stated, tf~e measure clearly applied only to the Racetrack property and not other properties. In the case of the WestField property, the zoning is C-2 with an H and D overlay. As stated earlier in the report, the D overlay specifically addresses design, setback and architectural issues, including signage. Therefore the C-2 sign standards apply to the Westfield mall, however the D overlay allows flexibility and variations from the C- 2 standards, some of which have been previously approved by the City. The variations from the C-2 sign standards for the mall approved by City Council Resolution Nos. 6199 and 6254 include the following: • The developer shall be permitted two freestanding mall identification signs on the perimeter of the property and two multi-tenant monument signs which identify up to six (6) tenants each, all for a total of four (4) signs. The Code would allow for a total of two signs. • Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, majnr restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 square feet or more ADR 05-026 Page 8 theaters/cinemas and a food market. Generally these standards are stricter than the City Code, as under the Code each individual business would be entitled to a wall sign, which for Westfield Santa Anita would result in extensive signage on the outside buildings of the mall. • Single-sided monument signs shall be allowed for a food market, theaterlcinemas and restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 square feet or more that have public entrances from the exterior of the mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open-air mall area and located within planter areas. This is an exception because monument signs are considered freestanding signs,in the Code and Westfield would be allowed only two for the entire property (they already have four in place). It should be noted that Westfield has not requested any new monument signs pursuant to this provision. . Westfield, as part of their previous approvals, was required to submit a sign program for the property, which is typical for a large development such as the mall. The sign program submitted by Westfield included a number of signs, which identified "WestField" as the mall owner/operator. Staff was informed this was part of Wes~eld's "branding" strategy, to identify their properties by their corporate name. The sign Code does not have any language that addresses this type of signage. However since the Westfield signs were included in their sign program and this type of flexibility is allowed in the D overlay zone, they were approved. . Under the C-2 zone, signs not specifically permitted are either prohibited or categorized as another type of sign. For example, monument or pole signs are not specifically addressed in the Code, so they are categorized as freestanding signs. In addition blade signs are not specifically addressed in the Code but are considered projecting signs. "Projecting signs" or "blade signs" are permitted only for businesses that do not have a free standing sign, however, they have been permitted for the Mall under the sign program as allowed by the D overlay. . The final exception pertains to signs visible from the public right-of-way. Generally, all exterior signs must comply with the Sign code standards. This of course would not apply to signs that are within the enclosed portion of buildings such as the Mall. However for the Mall, Westfield requested and the City approved a provision that any sign in an open-air portion of the Mall such as the restaurant area adjacent to Wood Ranch, Cheesecake Factory and McGrath's, would not be subject to the Sign ordinance provisions if the signs faced the interior and were not visible from the right-of-way. Overall it is staff's position that the flexibility provided by the D overlay allowing for flexibility in signage is appropriate for a site as large as the Westfield mall. ADR OS-026 Page 9 While it does result in exceptions to adopted Code standards, all signs are still subject to the design review process. Landscaping and Liqhtinq Landscaping fo~ the proposed Phase 1 b expansion is shown on the conceptual landscape plan on 5heet 14 of the submitted plans. The placement and type of new planting materials (orchard trees, palms, evergreen trees, ivy, flowering shrubs, etc.) would be consistent wiYh the existing landscaping theme at the mall. There will be no changes to the existing landscape buffers along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. The parking areas adjacent to Phase 1b will be enhanced with additional landscaping and trees. The Phase 1b lighting would be in accordance with the applicable lighting provisions of Resolution No. 6199 including the requirement for lighting to be hooded and arranged to reflect away from adjoining properties and the public right-of-way. Furthermore, lighting that would be generated from the Phase ~b expansion would be screened from neighboring properties by the existing landscaping and the six- to eight-foot high berm along Baldwin Avenue. Also, the surrounding new buildings would shield the ambient lighting and glare from the proposed central open space area. Parkinq and Loading The two levels of parking (Level 1 and Level 61) beneath the retail uses would appear to be entirely subterranean, with the exception of the garage entrances, due to the overall design configuration of the proposed expansion being integrated into the topography of the site. In addition, the portions of the parking structure that would be partially above grade would be concealed with fa~ade treatments mimicking the appearance of the retail level above. Parking Level 1 would be directly below the retail improvements, and would include 394 parking spaces, loading facilities, and a trash collection area, wRh vehicular access provided by two driveways on the western side and two driveways on the southern side of the proposed Phase 1b expansion. Level 1 would connect to the existing mall via an existing entrance to Macy's and a new entrance to Nordstrom, in addition to the pedestrian connections (escalators, stairs, and elevators) to the new retail level above. Below parking Level 1 there would be parking Level B1 that would include 389 subterranean parking spaces with pedestrian connections to the levels above. The two new parking levels combined would provide 783 parking spaces, for a total on-site parking supply'of 6,204 spaces. Based upon the code requirement of 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of GLA, the total required parking for the mali with Phase 1 b would be 5,882 spaces. ADR 05-Q26 Page 10 and racetrack), rather than simply create a third entity in the same area. The intent of such linkage is to facilitate each attraction's ability to draw patronage from, as well as contribute patronage to the other attractions, thereby increasing the success of the mall, race track, and new commercial development." The applicant proposes a future vehicular connection between the two properties utilizing the existing Gate 1/ Mall access intersection at Huntington Drive, and a future pedestrian connection between the two properties near the Phase 1A expansion, that would extend east across the ring road to the south parking lot•of the adjacent racetrack to address the above-mentioned General Plan performance standard. The proposed connections are shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the submitted plans. Staff Proiect Analvsis It is the Development Services DepartmenYs opinion that the low building profile, architectural styles, and predominant design elements of the proposed Phase "I b expansion convey good design principles, being sensitive to both the site and its surroundings. The layout, scale, massing, colors, and materials complement the existing mall buildings, and the overall design, if approved, would enhance the existing mall's west I by providing substantially more varied building forms and architectural character. The proposed Phase 1b development plans are preliminary, and based upon the tenants' needs, minor modifications may be necessary as the final structural drawings are prepared. However, the overall design and use of materials will not substantially change. The on-site vehicular access and circulation improvements have been reviewed and conceptually approved by the City Engineer and the City Traffic Engineer. However, the applicanYs proposal to utilize the existing Gate 1 access at Huntington Drive and the ring road to meet the General Plan performance standard of requiring a vehicular connection between the mall and racetrack is unacceptable. The Development Services Department does not feel that such a proposal meets the spirit or intent of the General Plan. The proposed plan routes all traffic to the intersection of Huntington Drive and Gate 1, requiring traffic on Huntington Drive to stop while traffic moves from the Westfield site'to the Santa Anita Race Track site. The proposed plan adds another phase to the traffic signal, thus further delaying the traffic flow on Huntington Drive. Also, the proposed access from Gate 1 to the Santa Anita Race Track could potentiaily become a primary access because of its location and configuration relative to Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive thus changing the traffic patterns on these streets. Forthese reasons, the proposed connection is unacceptable. Therefore, a condition of approval will require that the applicant submit an on-site vehicular access and circulation plan that specifically addresses a vehicular connection between the propeRies for review and approval by the Development Services Director prior to the issuance of any building permit for the expansion. The recommended location for this connection is to add a fourth "leg" to the existing ADR 05-026 Page 12 Access and Circulation Phase 1b would also include internal site access and circulation improvements. Vehicle access to the proposed improvements would be provided by a continuous ring road, which would extend from the southeast near the southern entrance of Macy's to the west around the Phase 1b expansion and curve then north towards Nordstrom. The ring road would allow travel along the expanded mall's perimeter with direct connections to the proposed parking structure and parking aisles, and would provide ingress/egress from West Huntington Drive to the south and Baldwin Avenue to the west. In addition, a semicircular entry plaza would be located to the immediate west of the Phase 1b improvements at the termination of the southern Baldwin Avenue driveway access to provide for the drop-off and pick-up of mall patrons. The operational aspects of this drop-off ar~d pick-up area will be reviewed by the Fire Chief and Police Chief through the plan check process. In addition, the project and the site will be developed in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act (Title 24) including connectivity with the adjacent right-of-ways, i.e., Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. The applicant is also proposing improvements to the Gate 8 entrance at Baldwin Avenue, which is located at the northwest corner of the subject property. A more traditional intersection configuration is being proposed to better organize traffic and further establish the right-of-way for mall and racetrack traffic. The proposed intersection improvements are analyzed in Section 4.7, pages 141 and 142 of the Addendum to the EIR. Access along the site's easterly property line for pedestrian and vehicular connections between the mall and the adjoining easterly property (the Santa Anita Racetrack) is required for General Plan compliance. Specifically, the Urban Design Development Performance Standards in the General Plan include the following standard: "20. When it is reasonably expected that substantial on-street traffic will be generated between a proposed development and an adjacent existing use, reciprocal vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided between the uses, as feasible, to mitigate disruption of on-street traffic flow, and reduce the need for vehicular travel" (page 6-11 of the Arcadia General Plan). Page 2-19 of the General Plan further states under "Urban Design": "There are several strong existing attributes that influence the potential new Commercial area's design. At this time, the mall and racetrack are two separate entities with no physical or commercial linkage. Development of new commercial uses in the southerly portion of the racetrack property represents a potential third major entity in the center of Arcadia. In order to benefit from the locale of the two existing regional attractions, and to maximize potential economic benefits, new commercial uses should be designed to establish linkages with the two existing major attractions (mali ADR 05-026 Page 11 three-legged intersection of the ring road and the internal aisle way leading to Westfield's parking structure. This intersection is already controlled with a stop sign and is located at the far eastern edge of the site adjacent to a logical point of connection to the Racetrack property. The proposed location for the pedestrian connection is acceptable. The conceptual signage proposal provides for creative signs that will be integrated into the building design to further enhance the storefronts. The Development Services Department encourages the use of symbols and logos to replace words whenever appropriate. ADR 05-026 Page 13 SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (CEQA) The applicant has submitted an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council in 2000. Section 15164 of CEQA Guidelines provide that an addendum to a previously certified EIR can be prepared if changes or additions are necessary and none of the conditions in Section 15162 of the Guidelines requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Section 15162 of the Guidelines require a Subsequent EIR where an EIR has already been prepared under the following circumstances: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require ma~or revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmentai effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration, b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative: To determine whether the criteria listed above have been met, the Addendum analyzes environmental impacts of Phase 1a, Phase 1b and the potential impacts from a future Phase 2 addition. This analysis reviews whether any ADR 05-026 Page 14 significant environmental impacts that were not identified in the Certified EIR would occur or whether any previously identified significant impacts would be more severe. The analysis concludes that the expected impacts of Phase 1 b does not meet the requirements listed above for preparation of a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines. The Addendum concludes that all of the impacts associated with the three potential phases are within the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR and/or do not constitute a new or greater significant impact. Based on this conclusion, the City agrees that the Addendum is the appropriate form of CEQA documentation to address the City's design review for Phase 1 b. The Addendum is formatted much like the original Certified EIR, with a Project Description detailing the three phases of expansion described in the Certified EIR, a list of related projects, and an environmental analysis of key issues. The Addendum provides analysis on Aesthetics and Light and Glare, Air Quality, Geology/Soils, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and a list of impacts not found to be significant. In addition, the Addendum includes the following technical appendices: . Air Quality Technical Appendix - prepared by PCR Services Corporation • Noise Technical Appendix - prepared by PCR Services Corporation . Traffic and Parking Analysis - prepared by Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates . Water Supply Analysis - prepared by PCR Services Corporation • Surface Water Quality Analysis - prepared by PCR Services Corporation . Correspondence letters with Utility Providers . Analysis of City of Arcadia Fire and Police Department Services - prepared by HRA. The Applicant has provided for informational purposes an "Urban Decay" analysis prepared by HR&A (under separate cover). Each of the sections included in the environmental analysis provide the environmental setting, environmental impacts of each of the three proposed phases of development, a cumulative analysis, a list and description of mitigation measures, and a conclusion. The Addendum includes an analysis of cumulative impacts that may result from development of the Project together with other related projects or reasonable foreseeable growth in the surrounding area. Thirty (30) related projects have been included in the analysis of cumulative impacts for Phase 1b in the year 2008. These projects are located in the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Arcadia, the County of Los Angeles and other nearby cities including Monrovia, Temple City and Sierra Madre. ADR 05-026 Page 15 The related project identified for the year 2015 is the racetrack development, the Shops at Santa Anita. The analysis of year 2015 conditions for traffic also includes ambient growth expected as a result of general growth in the area, including that anticipated in the City of Arcadia's General Plan. Rather than reproduce the environmental analysis within the Addendum, the Staff Report provides a summary below of some key issues addressed in the Addendum. Please refer to the Addendum for more specific and detailed analysis and conclusions on each of the areas of environmental review. Reauired Mitipation Measures from Phase 1 a The certification of the EIR in 2000 included a Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) that was approved along with the project. The MMRP included a number of required mitigations to be completed by Westfield. The mitigation measures included several traffic related measures that were required to be bonded for or completed prior to issuance of building permits for "Phase 1" (that is, the previously built Phase 1a and the now-proposed Phase 1 b). These Mitigation Measures remain uncompleted. The City accepted a bond from Westfield to hold in lieu of completion prior to the issuance of the Phase 9a buildings permits. Bonding is a legally acceptable process for public improvements that insures completion of the improvements by the developer at a later date. The mitigation measures listed below, previously identified by the City as requirements for building permits for Phase 1a and Phase 1b, remain outstanding. Each of these mitigations is under the jurisdictional control of an entity other than the City of Arcadia. Caltrans is the responsible agency for the mitigations at the I-210 Freeway and Los Angeles County is the responsible agency for the intersection of Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard. Representatives from WestField have been working with these entities on completing these mitigations. 1. Foothill Blvd. At Baldwin Ave. • Add a separate left-turn lane on the northbound approach. Status: Westfield has been working on this mitigation with Caltrans. To provide the left turn lane on the northbound approach, Caltrans must have temporary right of entry to three properties on the east side of the off ramp to install the additional lane and to build the sound wall. One property owner has refused to provide the necessary access to complete this mitigation measure. Caltrans is currently working on securing this access. To further assure completion of the mitigations required under Prior City Council Resolution No. 6197, prior to the issuance of a building permit for ADR 05-026 Page 16 Phase 1b, the Developer shall provide proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation measure. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the construction shall be completed. 2. I-210 EB Ramps at Baldwin Ave. . Restripe eastbound approach for a separate left-turn lane, a through-right lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Status: At this time the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has denied Westfield's application to restripe this approach. In a letter dated December 11, 2006, to Westfield, Andrew Still, Associate Permit Engineer for the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has stated that: "Traffic Investigations, the approval unit for the Permit Engineering Evaluation Report (PEER) does not agree to the signing and striping changes on the eastbound off ramp. The ramp should stay as is for maintenance, traff,ic operations and California Highway Patrol reasons." However, it is still a mitigation measure under the 2000 EIR as amended by the Addendum. This will remain a mitigation measure and the City will continue to hold the existing bond and review and renew the bond annually until the mitigation measure has been completed. 3. Huntington Dr. at Rosemead Blvd. . Provide a separate right-turn lane on northbound and eastbound approach by restriping and modify the traffic signals to accommodate the new right- turn lanes, if necessary. Detailed striping and signals plans shall be prepared and submitted to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works for review and approval. Status: After approval of the mitigation measures, the County, upon inquiry of how to proceed from Westfield, said they did not feel that the turn lane was necessary. However since that time the County has indicated that they would prefer to receive an "in-lieu fee" from Westfield and that the County wouid do the work at such time as the Kohl's project on the southwest corner of Huntington Drive and Rosemead is undertaken. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay to tfie County the cost for the construction of the northbound right turn lane in- lieu of construction. The County will incorporate the improvement into their project to widen the intersection. ADR D5-026 Page 17 In addition, in accordance with and to further assure the project applicanYs perFormance under prior Resolution No. 6197, the project applicant is required to participate in area-wide traffic improvements for all of Phase 1(that is for both Phase 1 a and Phase 1 b), as follows: 1. For Phase 1a, which received building permits prior to the City of Arcadia's adoption of its Traffic Impact Fee Program, the project shall participate in the area-wide traffic improvements identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan, as adopted, on a pro-rate "fair share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). The applicant has not yet complied with this mitigation measure. A nexus study to determine "fair share" responsibility shall be completed by the project applicant. A nexus based formula will ensure that the project fully compensates for its share of the cost of "new" capacity that must be provided at various locations. 2. For the now-proposed Phase 1b, the applicant shall pay the Transportation Impact Fee based on the adopted program prior to securing building permits. Aesthetics and Liqht and Glare The Phase 1b improvements would be constructed in the southwest quadrant of the site and would be integrated into the existing structures. The proposal is designed to provide a pedestrian-oriented feel by grouping single story retail buildings around open-air walkways and plazas. The retail uses would be located above two levels of parking, one partially at grade and one subterranean. Heights of the retail buildings would be approximately 25 feet with architectural features 50 feet above finished floor. Given the topography of the site, the structures appear as one or two stories depending on the location on site. The most prominent improvement in Phase 1b would be approximately 30 feet lower in elevation than the Center Court skylight on the opposite side of the Mall, which.is at 83 feet above finished floor. The tallest feature on Phase 1b is approximately 50 feet in height. The Architectural Design Review packet includes elevations and sections. The project would be visible from adjacent right-of-ways along Baldwin and Huntington Drive but will appear within the frame of the existing structures. No views of the mountains would be obscured, and the parking structure would be screened for the most part by fa~ade treatments. No views would be impacted from the Racetrack grandstand as the project is screened by existing buildings from that vantage point. With regard to light and glare, Phase 1 b would comply with the design guidelines estabiished for the site as part of Resolution No. 6199. The Resolution details light standards, landscaping, the existing landscaped berm along Baidwin Avenue, etc. The proposed buildings will effectively screen any light from the internal outdoor courtyard area. - ADR 05-026 Page 18 The aesthefic and view impacts of Phase 1b are within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. Land Use/Planninq Phase 1 b is consistent with the zoning regulations applicable to the site. The uses proposed (retail and restaurant) are permitted under C-2 zoning and the improvements proposed are consistent with the "D" overlay (Resolution No. 6199) on site. This resolution includes compliance with parking, landscaping, height of buildings and compliance with the City's Architectural Design Review process. , The total site area is 3,446,380 square feet and Resolution No. 6198 allows a floor area ratio (FAR) of .50 Gross Leasabie Area (GLA). The following table provides a breakdown of the existing and proposed floor area on the site. AREA CALCULATIONS Site Area 3,446,380 sf FAR .50 GLA 1,723,190 sf GLA Area Gross Buildin Area Cit of Arcadia GLA Mall Area rior to Phase 1 a 1,197,100 sf 922,451 sf Mall Area after Phase 1a 1,545,100 sf 1,137,444 sf Pro osed Develo ment Phase 1b Level 2 Block 1 26;429 sf 22,100 sf Level 2 Block 2 41,804 sf 35,000 sf Level 2 Block 3 30,217 sf 25,300 sf ° Level 2 Block 4 10,117 sf 8,500 sf Level 2 Block 5 11,885 sf 9,900 sf Total for Phase 1 b 120,452 sf 100,800 sf New Site Total 1,665,552 sf 1,238,244 GLA sf Based on the applicanYs original request for an additional 600,00~ sq. ft. of GLA as analyzed in the 2000 EIR, Phase 1 b is below the allowable FAR of .50 GLA (currently calculated as .36 GLA). The Addendum further states that there will be no new significant impacts on employment growth impacts and population in the City. The Addendum concludes that land use impacts are within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. Public Services (Fire and Police Services) Phase 1 b would develop additional commercial uses on the site and, as a result, would increase the demand for city services. The discussion within the staff ADR 05-026 Page 19 report is limited to the potential impacts on fire and police services. There will be no impacts associated with Phase 1 b that will be outside of the envelope of impacts reviewed along with the Certified EIR for all other municipal services (water, sewer, storm water, etc.). Please see Technical Appendix G of the Addendum for an analysis completed by HRA on expected impacts to police and fire services. In terms of the Fire Department, the new floor area proposed in Phase 1 b wou.ld lead to increases in maintenance needs, training, inspections, and emergency responses. The analysis within the HRA report details a methodology to determine the number of firefighters and fire inspectors necessary to serve Phase 1 b. The analysis concludes that .19 additional full time equivalent firefighters would be necessary and .02 annual fire inspector personnel to serve Phase 1 b. Similarly, utilizing the methodology presented for Police Services, Phase ~ b would generate demand for .16 full time equivalent police officers and .06 detectives per year. To address these demands for staff, the analysis prepared in Technical Appendix G conciudes that Phase 1b is exPected to generate $543,000 in annual tax revenues which would more than account for the costs of both fire and police personnel. Phase 1 b would aiso generate the need for fire inspector staff time and time for plan checks and construction checks related to Fire. The City's building permit and plan check fee programs will generate the necessary revenue to provide the plan check and inspection services required. This is similar to the method with which the City handles inspections within the Building and Safety Division of the Development Services Department. To adequately address these issues related to staffing impacts, a new mitigation measure has been included in the Addendum regarding both Fire and Police Services that reads as follows: ' "The City will an~ually review fire (and police) response times and will commit sufficient funding from project generated tax revenues to provide sufficient staffing to maintain the City's standard response times." With this mitigation measure incorporated into the project, and the existing conditions and code requirements of both the Fi[e and Police Department, Phase 1 b will have no new impacts that were not previously studied. " Tra nsqortation/Traffic A Traffic and Parking analysis has been submitted for Phase 1b. The traffic report has been prepared by Fehr & Peers and Kaku Associates and is attached as Technical Appendix C. The Traffic Study analyzed the 21 intersections within the Certified EIR and included two additional intersections. ADR 05-026 Page 20 In summary, the report concludes that Phase 1b would not produce new significant traffic impacts or substantially worsen significant traffic impacts and as a result traffic impacts of Phase 1b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. The report further concludes that no mitigation measures are required for Phase 1b. Nonetheless, in the Addendum the project applicant reaffirms its commitment to perform the Phase 1a and 1b traffic mitigation measures previously required as part of the findings in Resolution No. 6197 supporting certification of the Certified EIR. Additionally, the Addendum notes that although Phase 1b improvements would not have any significant impacts on the neighborhoods adjacent to or near the project, the Appiicant has offered to place a30,000 in escrow with the City to be used to monitor and address any neighborhood intrusion (or "cut through") traffic that results from the proposed project. With regard to mitigation measures, although Phase 1b would not result in significant tra~c impacts and no mitigation is required to support Phase 1 b, the Applicant has voluntarily committed to either construct or provide the City of Arcadia with a financial bond for the remaining mitigation improvements that were identified in the Certified EIR as being required when new development exceeds a threshold of 400,000 sq. ft. The mitigation improvements include: . Baldwin Avenue and Driveway A- add a separate right turn lane on the northbound approach. . Baldwin Avenue and Driveway C- add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach. . Baldwin Avenue and Duarte Road - add a right-turn and a second left-turn lane on the northbound approach and a right-turn lane on the westbound approach. . Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Drive - add a separate left-turn lane on the southbound approach. . Huntington Drive and Colorado Place - restripe the westbound approach for an exclusive right turn, one share-through-right and two through lanes. . Huntington Drive and Santa Clara Street - restripe the northbound approach to provide for two right-turn lanes, one through land and a left- turn lane. . Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street - add a separate right-turn lane on the northbound approach. . Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue - add a second southbound right-turn lane. . Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive - add a second northbound left-turn lane and add a separate right-turn lane on the eastbound approach. ADR 05-026 Page 21 Staff does not recommend imposing this requirement because it is uncertain if or when the applicant will submit an application with development plans for Phase 2 and what the future cost of these improvements might be. Also the City does not need to accept the ApplicanYs "offer" at this time because the Mitigation Measures for Phase 2 will continue to be required prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase 2, if and when such development occurs. Economic Analvsis (Urban Decav) The Applicant has submitted a report dated October 2006 entitled "Analysis of Potential 'Urban Decay' as a consequence of Phase 1 b Development" prepared by HR&A, Inc. (HRA). The report analyzes the potential for the operation of the Phase 1 b addition to Westfield Santa Anita to directly or indirectly cause "urban decay" as that concept has been addressed in court decisions interpreting the California Environmental Quality Act. " The courts have recognized that proposed new retail development mav have the potential to trigger economic competition with existing retailers in the projecYs host community. If existing retailers are adversely affected by this competition, declines in sales could directly result in and/or lead to business closures, abandonment and other forms of physical deterioration that are indicative of "urban decay." If the severity of this change in physical circumstances is so substantial that it adversely affects appropriate use of the area, this situation may cross a threshold that defines a"significant impact" under CEQA. If this happens, it may be necessary that a mitigation measure be considered to reduce the impact on that physical environment. Phase 1 b is an incremental addition to an existing regional shopping center and not a new retail complex. Since the HRA report finds "that the scale of supportable retail space implied by future customer demand for the types of retail goods associated with Phase 1 b exceeds the retail floor area planned for Phase 1 b, for each principal Phase 1 b retail category, staff concludes that no adverse economic impacts will result in the market areas applicable to Phase 1 b." The HRA report concludes that the Phase 1b improvements may be a new source of competition in their respective market areas, but there is no reasonable possibility that the operation of the Phase 1 b improvements would result in significant adverse economic competition leading to the threat of urban decay. , ADR 05-026 Page 22 SECTION 4 FISCAL IMPACTS Phase 1b would lead to increases in demand for both police and fire services, as analyzed in the HRA report that provides a methodology to determine the number of police and fire personnel that would be necessary to serve Phase 1 b. The analysis concludes that .19 additional full time equivalent firefighters would be necessary and .02 annual fire inspector personnel to serve Phase 1 b. Simitarly, utilizing the methodology presented for Police Services, Phase 1 b would generate demand for .16 full time equivalent police officers and .06 detectives per year. To address these demands for staff, the analysis prepared in Technical Appendix G concludes that Phase 1b is expected to generate $543,000 in annual tax revenues which would more than account for the costs of both fire and police personnel. ~ Phase 1 b would also generate the need for fire inspector staff time and time for plan checks and construction checks related to Fire. The City's building permit and plan check fee programs will generate the necessary revenue to provide the pian check and inspection services required. This is similar to the method with which the City handles inspections within the Building and Safety Division of the Development Services Department. The City's independent consultant, Mr. Cal Hollis of Keyser Marston Associates, inc. has reviewed the HRA report, and concurs with their findings. ADR 05-026 Page 23 SECTION 5 RECOMMENDATION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Development Services Department recommends approval of ADR 05-026 subject to the following conditions of approval upon certification of the Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR. The terms "developer", "applicanY', "owne~", and "Westfield" shall be deemed to refer to the applicant for approval of ADR 05-026 and all successors in interest. 1. No building permit for any construction on the Property shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have 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 occupancy for the first retail building, the Developer shall provide (a) proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation 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 Services Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; provided, however, that if within two yea~s after issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 b, 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 1 a's "fair share" of area-wide traffic improvements 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 aoR os-ozs Page 24 for Phase 1 a shall be prepared by a consultant approved by the City and paid for by the project applicant. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building for Phase 1 b, a$30,000 bond or 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 Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Building Area C[mall area] as shown on the Zoning/Design overlay site plan submitted with the 2000 EIR. 7. Phase 1b shall be an open-air project with open courtyards and landscaping as indicated on Sheet 14 of the Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006. 8. Materials utilized in Phase 1b for the buildings and parking structure shall be of the materials palette included in the Sheet 15 of the Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006 and as indicated in all elevations and sections (Sheets 9 through 13). 9. Restaurant uses within Phase 1b shall be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA). 10.A11 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 1b. 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 shali be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or mor'e, major restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more, theaters/cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable square footage. ADR 05-026 Page 25 Tenant signs facing on the open-air courtyard area and not exposed to the public right-of-way shall be excluded from this provision. d. All new signage shall be subject to further design review and approval by the Development Services Director through the Sign Design Review process. 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the conceptual plans included on Sheet 14 of the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006, shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect and shall be submitted to and approved by the Development 5ervices Director before any building permit is issued for any part of the project. In addition to substantial conformance 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 11 a. above, three (3) percent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and the planting beds and trees shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area adjacent to Phase 1 b from the new buildings to the existing berms along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. 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 plarits shall be clearly designated and labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall surround all planting areas or islands. The required tandscaped 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 plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 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. ADR 05-026 Page 26 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 security personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the site. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of the first building permit for all new buildings on the Property (including the parking structure). The owner of the property shall at all times adhere to the approved security plan. Any material modifications of the security 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 prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the parking structure and shall address the issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisle widths and turning movements into and out of the circulation ramps for standard passenger 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 shali 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 dated October 3, 2000. e. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks, au~d 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. ADR 05-026 Page 27 16.Any floor area within the open common area(s) devoted to portable carts (not kiosks) shall not be subject to the City'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 business licensing purposes. This list shall promptly be furnished to the City Development Services Department upon request. 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 circulation. 19.Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail buiiding, 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 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 Pubiic 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 Wor+cs Services Department (PWSD) will provide and install two fully equipped metering vaults and two backflow preventers. PWSD will provide full future maintenance of inetering vaults, Westfield shall provide future maintenance of the backflow preventers under PWSD inspection, at the cost and expense of WestField. ADR 05-026 Page 28 c. The maintenance, repair and relocation of the existing water main, and the installation of any fire hydrants required shall be entirely undeRaken by Westfield and at the expense of Westfield. d. New fire sprinkler systems shall be installed by Westfield as required by the Arcadia Fire Department. 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 Development Services Director for his/her approval 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 belween the WestField Santa Anita 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 Wes~eld 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. 25. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief: ADR 05-026 Page 29 a. Access to and around structures during construction shall be maintained. A plan shall be submitted outlining all emergency access routes during and after construction. In addition, a detailed excavation plan shall be submitted and subject to approval 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 Occupancy for the first retail building, the 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. 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 be interconnected to the existing fire alarm panel. 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 Fi~e 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 ADR 05-026 Page 30 connections, standpipes, fire alarm panels, smoke evacuation fans, and other points of interest as required. Prefixed ladders shall be placed at locations approved 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 provided on the exterior of the building and visible, designating these interior parapet ladder locations. k. The drop-off-area access at the front of the expansion shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide a minimum weight capacity of 70,000 pounds apparatus access. Knox boxes shall be provided for access to any restricted 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 emergency lighting and the public address system. 27.A Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager shall act as a liaison between tf~e Police Department, Fire Department, Development Seroices Department, Public Works Services Department, and all tenant contractors throughout the duration of the construction project. A location will be established for all City inspectors and other contractors to coordinate inspections and meet with the Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager. The location shall be provided on plans submitted for buiiding 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. ADR OS-026 Page 31 31.The City must promptly notify the developer of any cfaim, 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, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 32.The developer shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may 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 the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the developer of any obligation under this condition. ADR 05-026 Page 32 SECTION 6 CITY COUNCIL ACTION AND RESOLUTIONS NOS. 6561 AND 6562 Aoproval If the City Council intends to take action to approve this Design Review application, the Council should move to: 1. Approve the Addendum to the Wes~eld Shoppingtown Expansion Environmental Impact Report; 2. Approve Architectural Design Review application ADR 05-026 subject to the conditions set forth in the Staff Report or as amended by the City Council; 3. Adopt Resolution Nos. 6561 and 6562 approving Architectural Design Review 05-026 and the Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Environmental Impact Report. Denial If the City Council intends to deny the Project, the Council should provide staff with reasons for the denial described in their motion and direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions for adoption at a later meeting. Approved By: ~~~~'~'~~j ~ William R. Kelly, City Man ger ADR 05-026 Page 33 SECTION 7 ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance No. 2135 (approved in 2000) 2. Ordinance No. 2136 (approved in 2000) 3. Resolution No. 6197 (approved in 2000) 4. Resolution No. 6198 (approved in 2000) 5. Resolution No. 6199 (approved in 2000) 6. Resolution No . 6245 (approved in 2001) The following items have been distributed under separate cover: 1. Comments received from the public on the project as well as the City's responses to those comments (distributed concurrent with Staff Report) 2. Volume I Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR - Westfield Santa Anita Improvements. 3 Volume II Technical Appendices C-G - Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR- Westfield Santa Anita Improvements 4. HR&A Analysis of Potential "Urban Decay", dated October 2006 5. Volume I Final EIR for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion - certified September 5, 2000. 6. Volume II Technical Appendices for the WestField Shoppingtown Expansion - certified September 5, 2000. 7. Volume III - Response to Comments for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion - certified September 5, 2000. " 8. Plans of Westfield Santa Anita - Mall Revitalization Phase 16 - Architectural Design Review ADR 05-026 Page 34 RESOLUTION NO. 6561 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005-026 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA (PHASE 1b) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. 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-story parking structure to accommodate 783 vehicles at the Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita; more commonly known as "Phase 1 b"; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007 the Planning Cornmission reviewed ADR 2005-026 and the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the architectural design therein, subject to the conditions 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. Section 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the location, configuration and architectural design and the 1 6~61 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 Environmentai 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. 6562 concurrent herewith; and 6. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (collectively referred to herein as the ProjecYs "CEQA Documentation"), the Administrative Record, the Staff Report (which includes recommended findings), and the draft resolutions for final action on ADR 2005-026. 2 6561 Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the proposed architectural design review (ADR 2005-026) subject to the conditions set forth below. The terms "developer", "applicanY', "owner", and "Westfield" 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 shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have 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 occupancy for the first retail building, the Developer shall provide (a) proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation 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 Services Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; provided, however, that if within two years after issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 b, 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 3 6561 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 Bivd. (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 1 a's "fair share" of area-wide traffic improvements 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 1a shall be prepared by a consultant approved by the City and paid for by the project applicant. 4 6561 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building for Phase 1 b, a$30,000 bond or 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 Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Building Area C[mail area] as shown on the Zoning/Design overlay site plan submitted with the 2000 EIR. 7. Phase 1b shall be an open-air project with open courtyards and landscaping as indicated on Sheet 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 Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006 and as indicated in all elevations and sections (Sheets 9 through 13). 9. Restaurant uses within Phase 1 b shall be limited to a maximum of 10,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA). 5 6561 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 restaurantsleating 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 mali 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 comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable square footage. Tenant signs facing on the open-air courtyard area and not exposed to the public right-of-way shall be excluded from this provision. 6 6561 d. All new signage shall be subject to further design review and approval by the Development Services Director through the Sign Des+gn Review process. 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the conceptual plans inciuded on Sheet 14 of the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006, shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect and shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before any building permit is issued for any part of the project. In addition to substantial conformance with the conceptual plan subrnitted 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 11 above, three (3) percent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and the planting beds and trees shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area adjacent to Phase 1b from the new buildings to the existing berms along Huntington Drive and Baidwin Avenue. 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 pians must '7 6561 be drawn to scale and the p{ants shal{ 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 plants fo be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 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. 8 6561 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 security personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the site. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of the first building permit for all new buildings on the Property (including the parking structure). The owner of the property shall at all times adhere to the approved security plan. Any material modifications of the security plan shall require the approval of the Police Chief, which shall ~ot be unreasonably withheld. 13. Final plans for the proposed parking structure layout shall be subject to review and approval by the Cify Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the parking structure and shall address the issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisle widths and turning movements into and out of the circulation ramps for standard passenger cars. 14. Interior fighting 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 9 6561 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 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 10 6561 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 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 business licensing purposes. This list shall promptly be furnished to the City Development Services Department upon request. 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 circulation. 19. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, the intersection of the Gate 8 Racetrack access raad 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 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 I1 ~ 6561 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 preventers. PWSD will provide full future maintenance of inetering vaults, Westfield shall provide future maintenance of the backflow preventers under PWSD inspection, at the cost and expense of Westfield. 12 6>61 c, The maintenance, repair and relocation of the existing 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 by Westfield as required by the Arcadia Fire Department. Backflow preventers on the fire sprinkier 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 Development Services Director for his/her approval 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 5anta Anita 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 13 6561 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 vehicufar 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 vehicufar and pedestrian connections between the two adjacent properties. 25. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Ghief: a. Access to and around structures during construction shall 14 6561 be maintained. A plan shall be submitted outlining all emergency access routes during and after construction. In addition, a detailed excavation plan shall be submitted and subject to approval 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 Occupancy for the first retail building, the 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. 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 be interconnected to the existing fire alarm panel. 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. 15 6561 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. j. Prefixed ladders shall be placed at locations approved 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 provided on 16 6561 the exterior of the building and visible, designating these interior parapet ladder locations. k. The drop-off-area access at the front of the expansion 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 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 emergency lighting and the public address system. 27. A Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager sha!! act as a liaison between the Police Department, Fire Department, Development Services Department, Public Works Services Department, and all tenant contractors throughout the duration of the construction project. A location will be established for aA City inspectors and other contractors to 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 17 6561 outdoor areas of the Mall. 29. The project and the site shall be developed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (7itle 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 harmiess 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 defiense, the developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 32. The devefoper shafl reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this approval and/or 18 6561 CEQA related action. Although the developer is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at is sole discretion, participate in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the developer of any obligation under this condition. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this _ day of , Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM Sfephen Deitsch City Attorney 19 6>61 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6561 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 20 6561 RESOLUTION N0. 6562 A RESOLUTI~N OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING THE EIR ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND FINDINGS BASED UPON THE EIR ADDENDUM FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005- 026 ON PHASE 1B OF THE EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA. WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the Arcadia City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1999121063) ("EIR") for an approximate 600,000 square foot expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita at 400 South Baldwin Avenue ("Original Project"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to plans approved by the City Council on October 15, 2002 (ADR 2002-061), the first phase of the Original Project ("Phase 1 a") has been constructed and opened for business since October 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, in 2005, Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted plans for architecturaf design review ("ADR 2005-026") for the second phase of the Original Project, which includes an approximately 100,800 square foot retail expansion and a subterranean two-story parking structure to accommodate 783 vehicles at the Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita ("Phase 1 b"); and 6562 WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (a), a lead agency shalf prepare an addendum to a prevlously certified environmental impact report if some changes or additions are necessary to a project but the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required; and WHEREAS, the City determined that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR would occur from changes or additions to the Original Project described in ADR 2005-026, and that preparation of an Addendum to the ElR was appropriate; and WHEREAS, to consider the potential environmental impacts of the Original Project as changed or added to under P;DR 2005-026 (the "Project"), the City prepared an Addendum to the EIR in January 2005, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines ("EIR Addendum"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subdivision (c), the EIR Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review, but can be attached to the EIR; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the EIR Addendum and all other relevant information presented to it regarding the EIR Addendum; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after evaluating the environmental impacts associated with ADR 2005-026 and the Project, has concluded that 2 6562 none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Compliance with the California Environmental Qualitv Act. As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR Addendum and supporting documentation. The City Council finds that the EIR Addendum contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with ADR 2005-026 and the Project. The City Council further finds that the EIR Addendum has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR Addendum reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. SECTION 2. Findinqs on Environmental impacts. Based on the EIR Addendum and all related information presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR 3 6562 is not required for the Project because Phase 1 b, as described in ADR 2005-026 and the EIR Addendum: 1. Does not consfitute substantial changes to the Original Project that will require major revisions of the 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 substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Original Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the 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 contain 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 EIR was certified, that shows any of the following: a. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the EIR; 4 6562 c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feas+ble would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City declined to adopt such measures; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environmenf, but which the City declined to adopt. SECTION 3. Approval of EIR Addendum. The City Council hereby approves the EIR Addendum and adopts the "Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings", which is based upon the analysis contained in the EIR Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Notice of Determination. The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Los Angeles County Clerk within five (5) working days of Project approval. 5 6562 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this _ day of , Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM Stephen Deitsch City Attorney 6 6562 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6562 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 7 6562 STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS P~ND FINDINGS I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Information Westfield Santa Anita (previously known as the 5anta Anita Fashion Park) opened to the public in 1974. Westfield Corporation, Inc. purchased the mall in September 1998. The mall is a reb onal shopping center located on approximately 79 acres at South Baldwin Avenue in the City of Arcadia. Specifically, the Project site is bordered by the Santa Anita Racetrack and associated horse stables to the north, the Racetrack parking lot to the east, and multiple-family residential uses to the west across Baldwin Avenue. In June, 1999, West6eld submitted various land use entitlement applications to allow for an expansion of up to 600,000 additionai square feet of Gross Leasable Area ("GLA") as well as revisions to existing performance standards and design guidelines. The proposed expansion included 46~,000 square feet of retail shops/anchor stores, 110,000 squaze feet of multiplex theaters, 20,000 square feet of freestanding restaurants and 5,000 square feet of shopping center food court uses ta be developed. On September 5, 2000, the Arcadia City Council adopted Resolution 6198, which amended the General Plan Land Use designation to increase the ma~cimum floor area ratio from .40 to .50, based on GLA. On October 3, 200Q the Arcadia City Council adopted the following ordinances and resolutions: Ordinance 213~, which amended parking requirements and established a definition for the term "gross leasable area," Ordinance 2136, which reconfigured zone boundaries to permit the proposed expansion, and Resolution 6199, which set out an arclutectural design review process for each phase of development. Also on September 5, 2000, the Arcadia City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 1999121063) (hereafter refened W as the "Certified EIR") for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project. The Certified EIR analyzed the approximate 600,000 square foot expansion of Westfield Santa Anita (as described in the Certified EIR, the "ProjecP'). Council Resolution 6197 certified tke Final EIR, adopted findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, and adopted a mitigation monitoring program• Anita 2007 Page 1 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findines B. Description of Phase la In 2001, Westfield applied for architectural design review for the first phase of Project development, referred to herein as Phase la, pursuant to its entitlements and Resolution 6199. ADR 2001-001 requested architectural design approval of a 276,000 squaze foot GLA retail expansion and a parking structure to accommodate 1,220 cars at Westfield Santa Anita. This application was approved by the City Council on August 7, 2001 by Resolution 6245. Due to the subsequent withdrawal of two proposed tenants, Westfield submitted revised plans for Phase la in 2002. ADR 2002-009 requested architectural design approval of a 208,000+ square foot GLA retail expansion and a parking structure to accommodate 630 cars at Westfield Santa Anita. The proposed plans were similar in design to the previously approved Phase I a, however, some of the uses changed. The revised plans included a multi-screen theater, restaurants and retai] tenants including a bookstore, sporting goods store and entertainment uses. This application was approved by the City Council on Mazch 19, 2002 by Resolution 6289. In September of 2002, Westfield submitted further revised plans under ADR 2002-061. The major change to the revised plans was the inclusion of a grade plus one level parking structure (Parking Structure A) proposed south of Robinson's May and northeast of Macy's. The structure was in addition to the proposed parking structure (Parking Structure B) located northeast of the expansion. In addition a 5,400 square foot auto center was proposed to be located on the site to replace the existing 17,700 square foot JC Penney TBA (tire, battery and accessory) building that would be removed as part of Phase 1 a. ADR 2002-061 was approved by the Arcadia City Council on October 15, 2002. Phase la, which has been constructed and opened for business since October 1, 2004, includes shopping center structures that are a combination of one and two stories. Within the Phase la area, approximately 181,093 square feet of GLA retail uses are located on two levels and include specialty stores within the shopping center. Approximately 912 net new square feet of food court area is also located on the first level. In addition, a 16-screen, 73,938-square-foot multiplex movie theater is located on the second level. As part of these improvements, pre- existing retail uses, as well as some surface parking ]ot spaces, were removed. The building heights of the Phase la improvements vary from 36 feet at the entry to a masimum of 66 feet, including vertical elements. C. Description of Phase lb In 2005, Westfield applied for azchitectural design review for a second unit of Project development, referred to herein as Phase lb, pwsuant to its entitlements and Resolution 6199. ADR 2005-26 requests azchitectural design approva] of approximately 100,800 squaze feet GLA of retail shops, including 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and the development of additional parking to be located in the southwest quadrant of the property, within Yhe building limit line for City ot Arcad~a Westfield Santa Anita February 2007 ~ Page 2 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Building Area C. The Phase lb retail improvements would consist of five blocks of retail buildings connected by an open air landscaped promenade. The retail uses would be located above two levels of parking, one of which would be developed partially at grade and one of which would be entirely subterranean. The two new parking levels combined would provide 783 parking spaces, for a total on-site parking supply of 6,204 spaces. Phase lb would also include internal site access and circulation improvements, which includes a modified ring road extending from the southeast near the southern entrance of Macy's to the west around the Phase lb retail area and proceeding to the north towards Nordstrom. In addition, a semi-circulaz entry plaza, which would allow for the drop-off and pick-up of shopping center patrons, would be located to the immediate west of the Phase lb improvements at the termination of the southern Baldwin Avenue ingress/egress driveway. Furthermore, although not necessary to reduce any impacts, to improve existing circulation the Applicant has proposed to implement certain voluntary enhancements in the vicinity of the internal ring road, Driveway A and Gate 8. D. Description of Phase 2 Following completion of Phase lb, a total balance of approximately 229,057 square feet of the 600,000 square feet of GLA analyzed within the Certified EIR would remain to be developed within the Westfield Santa Anita property subject to architectural design review by the City and gross building area requirements. This remaining development increment, referred to as Phase 2, permits 168,907 square feet of retai] shops/anchor stores, 36,062 square feet of multiplex theater space, and 4,088 square feet of food court uses, in addition to the development of freestanding restaurants (up to 20,000 square feet) and is subject to future architectural design review pursuant to Resolution 6199. E. Scope of EIR Addendum At the request of the City of Arcadia, an EIR Addendum was prepared to evaluate and compare the environmental consequences of Phase Ib with those disclosed in the Certified EIR regazding the Project, and to determine and analyze whether impacts expected of Phase 1 b depart in any material way from the environmental impacts analyzed for the entire Project. A secondary purpose of the Addendum is to identify the environmental impacts associated with buildout of the remainder (Phase 2) of the Project after implementation of the first two development increments (Phases la and lb). These impacts ariribuCable to Phase 2 are also compared with the analysis and findings within the Certified EIR. A final purpose of the Addendum is to provide an analysis of cumulative impacts based on cunent information regarding related projects in the surrounding area. The findings included below incorporate, by reference, all previous fmdings and entit1ements related to the Project and initially evaluated in the Certified EIR. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that "A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to Ciry of Arcadia W'estfield Santa Anita Fehruary 2007 Page 3 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record." Below is a summary of the findings required pursuant to Section 1~164 of the CEQA Guidelines, which summarize the analysis contained in the Addendum. II. STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND FINDINGS A. Aesthetics and Light and Glare 1. Project Impacts in t6e Certified EIR As analyzed in the Certified EIR, implementation of the Project would not require the alteration of existing landforms nor would it substantially alter the existing viewsheds and visual character of the site from the surrounding areas. (Addendum, p. 34) The existing commercial uses and proposed expansion were considered visually compatible (i.e., both commercia] in nature) with the existing Santa Anita Racetrack located directly north and east of the site (Ibid.) In addition, the Certified EIR concluded fhat the Project would not visually impact the horse stables that aze located directly north of the site, nor would it impacf the lazge parking area east of the site, since the parking area is not considered visually sensitive. (Ibid.) In the Certified EIIt, the maximum building height of the Project's restaurant pads in Building Areas A and B was limited to two (2) stories, 30 feet (as set forth in mitigation measure 4). (Ibid.) In addition, Ordinance No. 2136 reconfigured the H8 overlay zone, limiting the height of azeas closest to West Huntington Drive to Che height restrictions set forth in the G2 zone, which include three stories or 40 feet. The Certified EIR concluded that elevation differentials and the existing landscaping along Baldwin Avenue and the reduced building height would mitigate any potentially significant aesthetic impacts. In addirion, views of the existing Nordstrom building are blocked by the existing berm and associated landscaping which ranges between six and eight feet along Baldwin Avenue. Also, the pad elevation is approximately 20 feeY below Baldwin Avanue, which provides additional screening. (Ibid.j Further, the bulk and height of the existing center is partially buffered by the distance from the residences to the mall structures. Large arterial roadways separate the Project site from adjacent multi-family residences along Baldwin Avenue and Huntino on Drive. (Addendxm, p. 35) Regarding potential cumulative impacts from the Project, the Certified EIR concluded that there are no other proposed development projects which could combine to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area. As a result, cumulative aesthetic impacts were not considered s a~nificant. (Ibid) With the existing landscaping and implementation of the following mitigation measures, it was concluded that potentially significant impacts to aesthetics would be reduced to less than significant. 2007 Wes[field Santa Anita Page 4 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findin;s 4.1.3.1. All site plans and architectural building elevations shall be • submitted to the City of Arcadia for ~•eview and approval by the Planning Commission and Ciry Council in acco~~dance with the City's Architectural Design Review Process. 4.1.3.2. The Development Services Department shall review and approve the Project's landscape plans, prior to issuance of building permits. (Draft EIR, p. 4-17.) 4.1.3.3. The parking structure(s) shall be architecturally compatible with the mall architecture. 4.1.3.4. The proposed restaisrant pads located along Baldwin Avenue shall be limited to two (2) stories with a nzaCimum height of 30 feet. (Addendum, p. 34) . In addition to these findings, Resolution No. 6199 was adopted on October 3, 2000. This implements the provisions far the "D" Architectural Design Zone overlay within the site, sets forth design guidelines for the site that established permitted uses and uses by conditional use permit, a Design Overlay Area for future development, a process for architectural desib review, parking requirements, design guidelines for pazking facilities, sigriage standards, landscaping standazds, height limitations and setbacks for Building Areas A and B along Baldwin Avenue and other guidelines for future development within the Project site. (Addendum, pp. 35-36), With regard to light and glare, the Certified EIF2 concluded that existing landscaping and elevation differentials would screen residents adjacent to Baldwin Avenue from lighting of proposed restaurant pads. In addition, existing vehicular traffic and street lighting on Baldwin Avenue would mask any additional lighting. No spillover of parking lot lighting would be anticipated. Therefore, potential light and glare impacts are not eonsidered significant and no mitigation is required. (Addendum, p. 35J' ' 2. Phase la Impacts Building heights within Phase la are a combination of one and two stories ranging from 36 feet at the new entry to 66 feet when including towers and vertical elements. These heights are below the 85-foot codified height limit evaluated in the Certified EIR and the maximum heights are similar to the approximately 62 foot height of the Macy's and Ro6insons-May building. Views of the Phase la improvements from Baldwin Avenue are generally obstructed due to other intervening structures within the shopping center as well as the existing landscaped berm and elevation differential. Along Huntington Drive, landscaping partially obstructs views of Phase la development. No substantial changes to pre-existing views, including views of the Santa Anita Grandstands and San Gabriel Mountains, resulted from development of Phase la. Therefore, impacts related Yo views were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 36) Westfield Santa Anita City of Arcedia February 2007 Page 5 Statemen[ of Environmental Effec[s and Findings Phase la was constructed in an architectural style using elements and colors that complement the pre-existing structures at the shopping center. Landscaping for Phase la enlianced the pre-existing landscaping on the site with the planting of palm trees, deciduous trees, and flowering shrubs. In addition, building massing was consistent with existing structures and building heights were similar to or less than existing building heights as described above. Therefore, impacts related to visual character were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 36% Phase la did create new lighting, but such lighting was directed to prevent spillover to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the Phase la improvements did not create light spill that exceeded the City threshold of 0.1 foot candles onto residential uses. Phase la also did not employ highly reflective materials which could contribute to glare. Light and glare impacts associated with Phase la were less than significant. Thus aesthetics and light implications of Phase la aze within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified (Addendum, pp. 36-37J 3. Phase lb Impacts Heights of the new Phase lb retail buildings would be approximately 2~ feet with certain architectural features up to approximately 50 feet above finished floor, which is less than the 85- foot maximum height allowed within much of the Project site per the H8 overlay zone. Given the variation in the site's topography, Phase lb structures and stores would appeaz as one to two stories depending on the vantage point. The finished elevations of the Phase lb retai] buildings would be consistent with the elevations of existing shopping center structures and would be much lower than the 85-foot height limit approved for the Project. (Addendum, p. 37-38) Views of the proposed Phase ]b retail buildings would be generally obstructed from Baldwin Avenue and adjoining residences due to the elevation differential and existing landscaped berm. Additionally, with the exception of the parking structure entrance/exits, the proposed Phase lb parking areas would not be visible from any vantage point as they would be integrated with the topography of the site and the new retail buildings. As the elevations of Phase lb structures would be consistent with the existing shopping center, long-range views of the San Gabrie] Mountains to the north would continue to be available from West Huntington Drive. Additionally, no impacts to views of the Santa Anita Racetrack Grandstands would occur since Phase lb would 'not be located within its view corridor. Due to their height and looation, the Phase lb improvements would also not obstruct any scenic views of the Los Angeles Arboretum. (Addendum, p. 38) Views from the interior of the Westfield property would not substantially change, although new perimeter construction may allow new vantage points. View of the Racetrack Grandstands from the top of the northem parking structure of the Westfield property would not be affected by the Phase Ib improvements. (Addendum, p. 44) • City oT Arcedia Westfield Santa Anita Fehruary 2007 ~ Page 6 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings The Phase lb buildings would also present substantially more varied building forms and architectural character than the existing shopping center's west faqade does at present. Building materials would reflect a conte~:tual inspiration with an emphasis on Califomia textures and colors and include varied azchitectural details. Phase lb wouid also incorporate a landscape plan that would be in keeping with the existing landscapine theme. Overall, Phase lb's architectural design and landscaping would complement the existing shopping center, and Phase lb would have a less than significant impact on existing visual character. (Addendum, p. 44) With regard to ]ight and glare, Phase lb would comply with the guidelines for the site established by previous entitlements. Overall, Phase lb improvements would not create light spill that would exceed the City threshold of 0.1 foot candles onto residential uses. Building materials proposed as part of Phase ] b, including materials within the central outdoor area of the Project, would consist of materials that aze not highly reflective. Therefore, consistent with the Findings far the Certified EIR, light and glare impacts associated with Phase lb would be ]ess than significant (Addendum, pp. 44-47) 4. Phase 2 Impacts While the precise location and design of new buildings has not yet been determined, additional GLA could be provided within the designated building areas on the site. Thus, building heights would be required to be within the allowable limits set forth for the Project site pursuant to Project entitlements. The remaining increment(s) would also be subject to the other desiKn guidelines established for the site, including those regarding landscaping lighting and building setbacks for the Project approved in Resolution No. 6199, as well as the mitination measures set forth in the Certified EIR. Furthermore, Phase 2 would also be required to comply with the Architectural Design Review process. Overall, all of the aesthetic and view implications of Phase 2 are expected to occur within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 47-48~ 5. Cumulative Impacts Four related projects are located within some of the same viewsheds of Westfield Santa Anita: the senior housing development at 650 West Huntington Drive, the Methodist Hospital Master Plan, the Recreation/Community Center on Campus Drive, and the racetrack mall development project. The senior housing development, which would be located direcfly across the Westfield site at the southeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue, would be sepazated from the Project by Huntina on Drive, which includes a median with matwe landscaping as well as landscaping. The Methodist Hospital Master Plan and tha Recreation Community Center projects to Westfield Santa projects aze generally not within the same view corridor as the Project. Thus, potential cumu]ative aesfhetic impacts resuiting from improvements within Westfield Santa Anita and development of the above related projects would not be significant (Addendum, p. 48) CiN uf Arcatli February 2007 Sen[a Anita Page 7 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings The racetrack mall development project, located to the east of the Westfield site, would be required to address, among other things, the community objectives identified in the General Plan including maintaining azchitectural compatibility with the historic racetrack grandstand, preserving views of the grandstands along Huntington Drive and for the racetrack mall development to provide pedestrian and vehiculaz linkages to Westfield Santa Anita. Therefore, assuming compliance with these requirements, similar to the conclusion reached in the Certified EIR, cumulative impacts on aesthetics including visual character, views, light and glare associated with development within Westfield Santa Anita and other related projects would be less than significant. (Addendum, pp. 48-49) 6. Addendum Findings Based on the discussion above, Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen any aesthetic impacts, including those associated with aesthetic character, views and light and glaze. Rather, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant and such impacts would be within tbe envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. SOJ Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen aesthetic impacts as development would comply with the mitigation measures and other regulations established for the site. Thus, Phase 2's impacts on aestbetics and views would also be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacYs analyzed in the Certified EIR (Ibid.) B. Air Quality 1. Project Impacts in t6e Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that air quality impacts during construction would be well below significant ttu'eshold levels. (Addendum, p. 56J Potential construction dust soiling impacts would be confined mainly to cars parked near individual construction sites, but not to any nearby homes or other dust-sensitive uses. (Addendum, p. 56-57) In addition, daily equipment exhaust would be below SCAQMD thresholds and air quality standards will not be exceeded during construction because of the limited total volume of emissions and the mobility of the emission sources. (Ibid.) ' In addition, the individual cancer risk from diesel exhaust would not be significant. Because the large surrounding parking lot creates a substantial disturbance buffer and because of the direction of daytime winds, the diesel exhaust exposure from on-site construction equipment would be below the cancer risk threshold at the neazest homes along Baldwin Avenue andlor Huntington Drive. Further, while there may be some concerns regarding ACMs within existing CiTy of Arcadia ~ Westfield Sente Anita February 2007 Page 8 Statement of Environmental Effects and buildings, adequate mechanisms are in place to insure safe exposure for both asbestos abatement warkers as well as the general public. (Addendum, p. 57) In addition, the Project would maintain a]ess than significant threshold for VOC-containina compounds through the use of building materials that are pre-coated under factory conditions and limiting the amount of paint and other VOGcontaining compounds applied on a given day. (Ibid.) Regarding localized air quality impacts, the analysis for 21 intersections in the Project area presumed worst-case conditions for maximum loca] and regional CO exposure occurring at the same time calculated at 25 feet from the roadway edge. However, most residences near the Project site are generally beyond 25 feet from the edge of the roadways analyzed. In addition, the analysis shows that peak hour CO levels, even in very close proximity at all but one of the analyzed intersections, do not exceed the California one-hour CO standard. Further, for the one location with a possible existing exceedance, Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, the theoretical peak levels would drop to below the standard by 2002 because of "cleaner" cars in the future. Also, all future one-hour CO concentrations for theoretical worst-case conditions would be below the allowable threshold. Further, the Project would not cause any new exceedances of the standards, nor measurably or substantially worsen any existing exceedances of the one-hour CO standard. (Ibid.) Regarding odors from the racetrack horse barns, odor has not been a major issue at the existing shopping center. Existing odors are minimized by prevailing winds and by odor/manure management practices at the track and bams. During hours when the shopping center use is heavy, winds are overwhelmingly from the Project site toward the bams. Barn odor during the day is carried from the barns toward the grandstands. Although odor potential reaches a maximum late at night, the site use is essentially zero at that time. In addition, although expanded uses would bring more people to the shopping center, the character or intensity of existing odors would not change as a result of the Project. Odor impacts are, therefore, less than sigiificant. (Addendum, p. 57-58j Regarding mobile source impacts to air quality, there is only a limited potential for reducing any lazge percentage of these Project impacts since all potenfially si~ificant air quality impacts come from mobile source emissions and are beyond the direct control of the Project Applicant. Although some "sfandard" mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during construction will be adopted, they fail to address the basic transportation-related air quality impacts. Mitigation of Project-related and/or cumulative air quality impacts would be limited in scope and are clearly not of sufficient magnitude to achieve sub-significance threshold levels. Therefore, Project-specific and cumulative development in accordance with the City of A~adia General Plan may contribute to the cumulative air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") due to generation of motor vehicle traffic. As a result, Project-related air quality impacts are considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. (Addendum, p. 58j Ciri ot Arcadia Westfield Santa Ani[a February 2007 Page 9 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Although the Project may result in significant air quality impacts, the Project is consistent with transportation control measures ("TCMs") to reduce the number of vehicle trips (i.e., through encouraging,carpooling and hieh occupancy vehicle usage). These TCMs are contained in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") and the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") adopted by the City. Therefore, the Project promotes the RCPG and AQMP policies relating to the promotion of high occupancy vehicle/transit use. (Ibid.) The Certified EIR included the following mitigation measures that reduce the potential impacts to the extent feasible: 4.1.3.1. The Project shall include suppression measures for fugitive dust and those associated with construction equipment in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and other AQMD requirements. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the Project Applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The fugitive dust control plan shall require the construction contractor to implement measures which may include, but not be limited to, the following.' a. Using adequate water for dust control (preferably using reclaimed water). b. Operating str•eet sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjacent roadways to remove dir•t dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks maving dirt or• bringing construction materials. c. Covering trucks or wetting down Zoads of any dirt hauled to or from the Project site. d. Performing low-NOX emissions tune-ups on on-site equipment operating on-site for more than 60 days. e. Requiring on-site contractars to operate a congestion relief program incZuding: Rideshare incentives for construction per^sonnel. Lane closures limited to non peak traffic hours. Receipt of construction materials scheduled for non peak traffic periods where possible. 4.2.3.2. The Project Applicant shall encourage future visitors of the Project to utilize alternative forms of transportation thraugh incorporation of the following measures: February 2007 we~caeia saer~ Page 10 5catement of Envuonmental Effects and a. Provide prefe~•ential parking spaces fo~• employee carpools and van poals. b. Provide on-site bus shelters as determined raecessary by the Development Services Director and provide a well-lighted, safe path Co the mall entrai2ces. The design of the new shelters shall be compatible with Che design of the mall and shall be subject ta the review and approval of the Development Services Director. a Work with the City of grcadia to implement a public outreach program that promotes alternative methods of transportation through information Idosks located in the mall. (Addendum, pp. 55-56) 2. Phase la Impacts Air quality impacts for Phase la were less than those analyzed in the Certified EIR. Specifically, mobile source emissions are primarily a function of the analysis year because future years benefit from the phasing out of older, more polluting vehicles. Since the Certified EIR conservatively analyzed a buildout year of 2002, actual emissions from Phase la were less, where only a portion of the overall Project was built in the year 2004. In addition, Project- related regional operational emissions are below the thresholds set by the SCAQMD. Also similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR, localized CO impacts are concluded to be ]ess than significant, In addition, similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR, with incorporation of mitigation measures, construction emissions associated with Phase la were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 58) 3. Phase lb Impacts Construction During construction of Phase lb, regional emissions of CO, NOx, ROC, SOa:, PM~o, and PMZ,S would be below the significance thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD. Thus, such impacts would be less than significant without incoxporation of miti~ation measures. These emissions represent the peak-construction day, and as such, average daily emissions would be considerably lower. (Addendum, p. 60) Construction of Phase lb would not result in any short-term localized impacts, as Project- related fugitive dust and construction equipment combustion emission would not cause an incremental increase in localized PM~o and PMzs concentrations of 10.4 µgrm3 or NOZ or CO ambient air quality standards to exceed their respective AAQS at a sensitive receptor location. With regard to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions, haul truck activity and heavy equipment operations during construction of Phase lb would yield a maximum off-site individual cancer zoo~ Page 11 Statement of Envirorunental Effects and risk of 1.0 in a million, where the maximum impact occurs west of the Project site. As the Project would not emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that individually or cumulatively exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of ten in one million, Project-related toxic emission impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Projected construction emissions associated with Phase lb would not result in any exceedances of the SCAQMD daily construction emission significance thresholds. As such, similaz to the Project studied in the Certified EIR, Phase lb construction impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.J The Project studied in the Certified EIR did not contemplate the additional export of soil required for the proposed below grade parking. As a result, emission association with haul activity increased. However, the overall acreage of disturbance is expected to decrease from four to three 'acres. These changes in emissions are also a function of changes in SCAQMD recommended methodology subsequent to completion of the Certified EIR and do not reflect a material change in the intensity of onsite construction activities. Overall, projected construction emission associated with Phase lb would not result in any exceedances of the SCAQMD daily construction emissions significance thiesholds. As such, similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR Phase lb construction impacts would be ]ess than significant. (Addendum, p. 61) Operation Operational emissions associated with Phase lb would be wifhin the envelope of emissions provided in the Certified EIR. Overall, projected emissions from Phase ]b development would be approximately 17 percent of CO, 8 percent of NOx, 19 percent of PM~ ~, and 6 percent of ROC of the emissions projected in fhe Certified EIR for the Project. While operational emissions associated with the entire Project in 2000 were projected to exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for CO, NOX, and ROC, emissions from Phase lb would not exceed the SCAQMD daily sia ificance thresholds for any of the analyzed pollutants. Therefore, in contrast to the analysis for the Project studied in the Certified EIR, operational emissions for Phase lb would not be significant. PMzs emissions were not calculated in the Certified EIR for the Project since SCAQMD only adopted standards for PMZ.S within the past few months. Thus, a comparison of PMZ.S emissions from Phase lb with those for the Project within the Certified EIR is not feasible. However, operational emissions of PM2.5 for Phase lb are less than the new SCAQMD recommended significance threshold. In addition, cumulative operational air quality impacts would not be significant for Phase lb development, contrary to the Project studied in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 62j L,ocalized CO emissions generated by Phase Ib traffic would fall below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not have potential to cause or contribute to a significant impact with respect to weekday and weekend one-hour or eight-hour local CO concentrations Ciry of Arcadia Weatfield Santa Ani[a Febnary 2007 . Page 12 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings due to mobile source emissions. Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by CO emissions. (.4ddendum, p. 62-63) Since Phase lb is consistent with the City of Arcadia's General Plan's growth and land use policies, Phase lb is considered consistent with the region's air quality plans. Thus, Phase lb would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. (Addendum, pp. 64-6.iJ Phase 2 Impacts Similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR and Phases la and lb, with incorporation of mitigation measures, construction emissions associated with buildout of Phase 2 would be less than significant (Addendum, p. 6~) Development of Phase 2 together with the emissions for Phase 1 b would not result in any significant impacts associated with regional emissions with the exception of ROC (which is the same as the Certified EIR). Therefore, operational emissions would be less than significant for all other pollutants and within the envelope of environmental impact set forth in the Certified EIR. (Ibid) Localizad CO emissions generated by Phase 2 traffic would fall below SCAQMD thresholds. Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be significantly affected by CO emissions. (Ibid) ~ 5. Cumulative Impacts There aze 31 related projects identified within the neneral Project study area. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates and the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, related Projects would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and implement a11 feasible mirigation measures to reduce air qualify impacts. Thus, similar to the conclusion reached within the Certifiad EIR, Phase lb's overall contribution to regional air quality impact during short-term construction activities would not be cumulatively significant. (Addendum, p. 66) Development of the Project would have a less than significant cumulative air quality impact. In addition, a localized CO impact analysis was conducted for cumulative traffic (i.e., related projects and ambient growth through 2015) and determined no local CO exceedances would occur at any of the studied intersections. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have a sia ificant cumulative impact on localized air quality. Regarding cumulative operational impacts, the Certified EIR stated, however, that cumulative development in accordance with the adopted City of Arcadia General Plan would conYribute to the cumulative air qualify problems in the South Coast Air Basin due to the generarion of motor vehicle traffic, resulting in a significant unavoidable adverse impact. As the air quality impacts of Phase lb and Phase 2 would also Ciry of Arcadia W'estfield Santa Anita Pebruary 2001 ~ Page 13 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings contribute to the cumulative air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin, cumulative operational impacts would conservatively contribute to a significant and unavoidable impact consistent with the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p.67, Certified EIR, p. 4-36) 6. Addendum Findings The mitigation measures within the Certified EIR would be implemented and would further reduce the already less than sib ificant construction emissions. Contrary to the analysis for the Project studied within the Certified EIR, Phase lb would not exceed the thresholds set by the SCAQMD for regional operationa] emissions. Overall, air quality impacts associated with Phase lb would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 69) As discussed above, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen air quality impacts idenrified in the Certified EIR., In addition, the impacts of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid) C. Geology/Soils 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Certified EIR concluded that although moderate to high intensities of seismic groundshaking can be expected to occur on-site, the effects can be mitigated by conformance with the latest Uniform Building code and/or recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of California for seismically resistive design of structures. Therefore, no significant impacts related fo regional seismicity are anticipated. (Addendum, pp. 72-73) The Certified EIR also concludes fhat no landslides are present on or near the site of the Project. Also, there are currently no problems relating to runoff and erosion since the Project site is fully developed and would remain covered in either asphalt or building materials. Simtilarly, because the Project site is already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil would be minimal during the construction phase of the Project. In addition, on-site soils are already compacled and covered by pavement atid fliere is no ecidence to suggest that thc ~c:ls ~e r~ot suitable for development. Also, due to past grading activities for the existing mall, the site is relatively flat and no impacts relating to gross slope stability are anricipated. (Addendum, p. 73) Further, as concluded in the Certified EIR, no liquefaction hazards were identified for the Project site. Although the alluvial deposits undemeath tbe Project site may be subject to differential settlement during any intense seismic shaking, such settlement is not anticipated to occur to the degree necessary to cause much damage. (Ibid) February 2007 Wes~eld Sen[a Page 14 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings In addition, the Certified EI32 concluded that cumulative geotechnical impacts wonld be reduced to ]ess than significant as cumulative projects adhere to mitigation measures contained in site-specific geotechnical reports, building codes, and grading ordinances. Therefore, cumulative geotechnical impacts related to the Project are not considered significant. With the implementation of the miti~ation measures below, any potential geotechnical impacts from the Project were concluded to be reduced to less than si~ificant. (Ibidj 4.3.3.1. All grading operations will fie conducted in conformance with " the upplicable City of Arcadia Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code (for seismic criterza). (Addendum, p. 72) 9.3.3.2. The grading and fou~vdation plans, including foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer. The findings and recommendations of the Soils Engineer shall be compiled in a geotechnical report and submitted to the Ciry of Arcadia for review mad approval prior to issuance of . grading permits. (Ibid.) 2. Phase la Impacts Phase la development is subject to strong seismic s~oundshaking during a seismic event. However, Phase la was completed in accordance with the miti~ation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR. These mitigation measures include compliance. with City grading requirements and the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements as well as the recommendations set forih in a specific geotechnical report prepared by a reQistered Soils Engineer for the proposed development. Thus, potential impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking were reduced to less than significant levels. In addition, no conditions or issues exist at the site that would contribute to the potential for landslides or liquefaction. (Addendum, p. 73-74) 3. Phase Ib Impacts Approximately 200,946 cubic yards of earthwork (i.e., total soil handled and moved) would be required for the Phase lb improvements. Phase lb would be developed in accordance with the City of Arcadia's regulatory requirements regazding grading and erosion control, UBC requirements, and the recommendations set forth in a site specific geotechnical report to be prepared by a registered soils engineer for Phase lb. Compliance with the regulatory requirements, which are also set forth as mitigation measures in the Certified EIR, would ensure that potential impacts associated with soil stability would be less than sib ificant. (Addendum, p. ~4l zoo~ sa~c~ P~nA 7 5 Statement of Em•ironmental Effects and Findings Phase lb development would be subject to strong seismic eroundshaking during a seismic event. Compliance with regulatory requirements described above would also ensure that potential impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant. In addition, as described above, no conditions or issues exist at the Project site that would contribute to the potential for landslides or liquefaction. Thus, the eeological implications of Phase lb would be ]ess than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibic~ 4. Phase 2 Impacts Development of Phase 2 would be completed in accordance with the City of Arcadia's regulatory requirements regazding grading and erosion control, UBC requirements, and the recommendations set forth in a site specific geotechnical report to be prepared by a registered soils engineer. Compliance with these regulatory requirements (which are also set forth as mitigation measures in the Certified EIR) would ensure that potential impacts associated with soil stability and strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant. Geological impacts of Phase 2 would be consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR. Thus geological implications would be within the envelope of the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 74) 5. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative development in the area, inclusive of the retail, office, and entertainment uses proposed as part of the racetrack mall development project, would, however, increase the overall potential for exposure to seismic hazazds by potentially increasing the number of people exposed to seismic hazards. However, as with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, related projects would be subject to established guidelines and regulations pertaining to seismic hazards. As such, adherence to applicable building regulations and standard engineering practices would ensure that cumulative impacts wou]d be less than significant (Addendum, p. 75) 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen geologica] impacts. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, geologica] impacts would be reduced to ]ess than significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. K~o new mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, geological implications of Phase ] b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 75-7~ Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen geological impacts. With incorporation of the mitigation measures, Cirv of Arcadia N'estfield Santa Anita February 2007 PaoP 1(, Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Phase 2's impacts on geology would also be reduced to less than significant and would be widiin the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid) D. Land Use/Planning 1. ProjectImpacts The Certified EIR concluded that since the Project's proposed uses are consistent with the existing commercia] uses at the Project site, no potential land use impacts are associated with the Project. In addiYion, since the existing uses and the Project consist of an enclosed mall, no significant land use impacts related to the existing parking area are anricipated. Further, the proposed restaurant within the northerly restaurant pad is likely to be enclosed and would limit potential odor related impacts from Yhe racetrack stables. In addition, Project-related traffic and noise impacts would be mitigated to a level of below significance. Therefore, the Project is considered environmentally compatible with the surrounding land uses. Further, the Santa Anita Racetrack is not considered a sensitive land use and would not be significantly impacted by the Project. Regarding potential impacts to existing residences from the proposed commerciai uses, an existing six- to eight-foot landscaped berm along Baldwin Avenue would reduce any potenfial land use compatibi]iCy impacts. As a result no significant impacts are anticipated. (Addendum, p. 79j Regarding the potential "worst-case" scenario of conshuction within 350 feet of existing residences at the site's eastern border, these units are separated from the proposed expansion area by West Huntington Drive, an eight-lane divided highway with a]andscaped median. ' As a result, it is unlikely that adjacent residents would perceive any increases in noise, light and glare, or on-site activity. Therefore, no land use compatibility impacts aze anticipated. (Ibid) Tbe Project is consistent with all the elements of the General Plan, with the excepfion of the Air Quality Element. Air quality impacts are further discussed in these findings. The Project is also consistent with most of the policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"). Purther, the ProjecY fully complies with or meets the intent of the majority of SCAG's ancillary/advisory policies and is consistent with SCAG's employruent forecasts for the City of Arcadia. Therefore, no significanY impacts with regard to consistency with land use policies and plans are anticipated. (Addendum, pp. 79-80) In addition, the Project, along with related projects in the surrounding azea, has already been anticipated and is included in the Arcadia General Plan. In addition, the Project site is considered appropriate for the proposed expansion due to the commercial nature of the surrounding area to the north and east. Tn addition, none of the cumulative projects would require the disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an existing community. As such, cumulative land use impacts are not considered significant. With the implementation of WesKeltl Santa Ani[a Citv of Arcadia February 2007 .. Paee 17 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings the mitigation measure below, any potential impacts to land use and/or planning would be reduced to less than significant. (Addendum, p. 80) 4.4.3.1. The Praject shatl be designed in ttccordance with all reIevant development standards and regulations setforth in the Zoning Ordinance, City Council Ordinunce 1425 and Resolution 418.i, as amended. (Addendum, p. 79.% 2. Phase la Impacts Phase 1 a consisted of the expansion of Westfield Santa Anita by 25~,943 square feet of new GLA, adjacent to existing buildings and within the building envelope considered in the Certified EIR. New uses for Phase 1a (e.g., restaurant, multiplex theatre, specialty stores) complement and support the commercial uses that were already established. In addition, Phase la did not result in any significant impacYS associated with traffic, noise, air quality, hazards or viewsheds. Therefore, Phase 1 a is compatible with existing uses on the site and in the vicinity and does not divide an established community. Land use compatibility impacts associated with Phase la.were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 80~ Phase 1 a is consistent with the land use and planning regulations set forth for the site, including the site's G2 zoning and Commercial General Plan land use desib ation. In addition, the Phase la improvements were implemented in accordance with the "D" Zoning overlay for the site and the land use mitigation measure above, both of which require compliance with the standards set forth in Resolution No. 6199. With regard to the "H8" Zoning overlay for the site, the building beights within Phase la are lower than the maximum 85-foot height limit set forth by this overlay zone. (Ibid) Since the Project studied in the CerCified BIR was demonstrated to be consistent with relevant SCAG polices, and Phase la is consistent with the development expectations of the Project studied in the Certified EIR, then Phase la is also consistent with the relevant SCAG policies. (Addendum, p. 80-81) 3. Phase lb Impacts Phase lb improvements would be developed adjacent to existing buildings and within the building envelope considered in the Certified EIR. The uses within Phase lb (e.g., retail, specialty stores, etc.) would be similar to or would complement the commercial uses that are already established within the site. Wide roadways, landscaped berms, parking, and topographical changes would substantively separate the Phase lb uses within the site from the residential uses within the vicinity. In addition, the proposed Phase lb improvements would be separated from the Racetrack and associated pazking uses by the existing shopping center structures. Phase lb would not result in any significant impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, hazards or viewsheds. Thus, the Phase lb uses would be compatible with existing uses City ot Arcadia H'estfield San[a Anita February 2007 Page 18 Stacement of Environmental Effects and Findines in the Project vicinity and would not divide an established community. Therefore, land use compatibility impacts ofPhase ]b would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 81) The retail and restaurant uses within Phase lb would be consistent with uses permitted under the site's underlying G2 zoning. In addition, the Phase lb improvements would comply with the "D" Zoning overlay for the site and the land use mitigation measure above, both of which require compliance with the standards set forth in Resolution No. 6199. Phase lb would also be developed in accordance with the Desio Guidelines set forth by Resolution 6199. With regard to the "H8" Zoning overlay for the site, the building heights within Phase lb would be much lower than the maximum SS-foot height limit set forth by this overlay zone. (Addendum, p. 81-82) Relative to consistency with the City of Arcadia General Plan; the proposed uses (e.g., retail, specialty stores, etc.) would be consistent with the uses set forth for the Commercial land use designation of the site. ln addition, with the proposed Phase ]b improvements, the FAR within the site would remain below the permitted FAR of 0.50. When the total amount of development allowed on the site per the Certified EIR is divided by the size of the site in square feet, the FAR for the site is 0.44, under the permitted 0.5 FAR. (Addendum, p. 82) With regard to consistency with regional plans, Phase lb generally supports the relevant policies set forth in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Phase lb would also be consistent with SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide as the uses would be consistent with those evaluated in the EIR and would represent only a portion of the floor area and building envelopes evaluated in the Certified EIR. In addition, Phase lb development would support those policies regazding economic viability, infill development and redevelopment. Thus, impacts of Phase lb associated with consistency with reo onal plans would be less than significant. (Ibid) 4. Phase 2 Impacts Phase 2 would include up to approximately 239,057 square feet of GLA within Building Area C and the freestanding areas of Building Area A and Building Area B. The uses proposed for Phase 2(e.g., retail, cinema, restaurant, etc.) would be consistent with the uses set forth for the Commercial land use designation of the site. (Ibid) Phase 2 would also be subject to the mitigation measure described above, the zoning standards and design widelines set forth for the site by the ivlunicipal Code (including Ordinance 2135 and Ordinance 2136), as well as Resolution 6199. As Phase 2 would be required to undergo the architectural desigi review process, it is expected that the development of Phase 2 would occur in accordance with applicable standards, guidelines, and regulations. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, the land use impacts of Phase 2 would also be less than City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anite Febnary 2007 . Paae t9 Starement of Environmental Effects and significant. Overall, land use implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIl2. (Addendum, p. 82-83) , 5. Cumulative Impacts The racetrack mall development project, the closest related project to the Westfield site, would require the rezoning on certain portions of the site from R-1 and S-1 to R-1 (Residential), S-1 (Special Use/Horse Racing) and CE (Commercial Entertainment). The General Plan designation for the southerly Racetrack parking lot site sets forth a number of compliance standards for new development, including, among others, retention of live horse racing at the Racetrack, preservation of the existing grandstand structure, land use compatibility with surrounding uses, respect for the architectural and cultura] heritage represented by existing Racetrack buildings, phasing of development, and protection of public views of Racetrack grandstands. Other cumulative growth in the City of Arcadia would generally be lirnited to the expansion of existing uses on the same site and would be subject to existing land use regulations and contiols (i.e., zonin„ General Plan designations, etc.). Assuming compliance with all applicable standards, it is anticipated that cumu]ative growth would be consistent with the City's General Plan and other ]and use regulations, and thus, cumulative impacts with regard to land use consistency would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 83j 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce any new or substantially worsen land use impacts. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb impacts with regard to land use and planning would be less than significant with incorporation of the mitieation measure. No new mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, land use implications of Phase ib would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 84) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen land use impacts. With incorporation of the mitigation maasure, Phase 2's impacts on land use would also be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (IbidJ E. Noise 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that, with implementation of the mitigation measure below, construction noise would be confined to the daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity by construction permit conditions. Demolition and new construction noise would be largely masked by existing traffic noise and blocked by much of the existing buildinos, such that City of Arcadie ~ ~ Wes[field San[a Anita February 2007 Page 20 Statement of Env'uonmental Effects and Findings temporary construction activiry impacts, even during maximum noise generation, would be less than sin ificant. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure, construction noise impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance. (Addendum, p. 8~ 4.5.3.1 Construclion activities ar•e prohibited between the hours of 7 P.M. and 7 A.M. Monday through Saturday. (Drafi EIR, p. 4-87.j Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless authorized by the Building Official. For operational noise, the Findines for the Certified EIR concluded that off-site traffic noise would only be increased by 0.4 decibels, which is undetectable by humans. Consequently, traffic associated with the shopping center expansion would not perceptibly chanoe the noise environment. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid) ?. Phase la Impacts As development of Phase ] a implemented the mitigation measure listed above from the Certified EIR, construction noise was confined to the daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity by construction permit conditions. In addition, demolition and new construction noise was largely masked by existing traffic noise and blocked by much of the existing buildings, such that temporary construction activity impacts were less than si~ificant. (Addendum, p. 89) Commercial activity associated with Phase 1 a is similar to that associated with uses already on the site and includes retail deliveries, retai] trash collection, customer loading, and parking. The Phase la improvements aze located within the northeastern portion of the site. Thus, commercial activity from Phase la is generally buffered from residentia] uses along Baldwin Avenue and along portions of Huntington Drive by other existing on-site commercial structures. ln addition, the Phase 1 a improvements are located at a sufficient distance from these uses such that local roadway noise along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive remain the predominant noise source for residential uses west and south of the Project site. No significant changes in ambient noise ]evels for nearby sensitive receptors occurred as a result of on-site commercial retail uses associated with Phase 1 a. (Ibid) 3. Phase lb Impacts Construction Peak construction noise levels for most of the equipment that would be used during Phase lb construction would range from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of ~0 feet from the source. The average (Leq) noise ]evel generated by construction activity would generally range from 77 to 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. As traffic noise levels along Baldwin Avenue are approximately 68 dBA CNEL, construction noise levels could increase ambient noise ]evels west of the site by approximately 2.4 dBA CI~TEL. However, receptors to the west across Baldwin Avenue would Cib~ af Arcadia ~ N'esMeld Santa Ani[a February 2007 Paee 21 Scatement of Environmental Effects and Findings also receive some additional noise attenuation from the berm located along Baldwin Avenue, and construction noise levels would likely only be intermittently noticeable given that Baldwin Avenue is a heavily traveled five-]ane divided highway with a landscaped median. For residentia] uses along West Huntington Drive, ambient noise levels to the south maq only increase by approximately 1.4 dBA CNEL given the distance attenuation. Construction noise levels to the north near the horse stables located at Santa Anita Racetrack would be a ma~cimum of 59 dBA LeQ and below the measured ambient noise level of 61.1 dBA Leq at the stables. (Addendum, p. 91-92) Typical construction noise ]evels at receptor locations would realistically be less than projected since the noisiest equipment would not be used continuously. Construction contractors for Phase lb would also be required to implement responsible construction management practices such as temporary sound barriers or mufflers to reduce noise impacts. Phase 1 b would be constructed in compliance with the miti~ation measure above regarding construction hours of operation, and as such, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 9?) While no noise sensitive uses aze located in the Project site, customers may experience temporazy short term construction noise while entering the exiting the shopping center. As the customers are not considered sensitive receptor, no mitigation measures are required. However, the Project applicant would implement measures as necessary (e.g. temporary barriers) to reduce construction noise levels and maintain a pleasant shopping experience. (Ibid.) Ooeration Outdoor operational activities associated with Phase lb would be similaz to existing commercial retail uses on the Project site and would indude retail deliveries, retail trash collection, customer loading, and parking. Much of the commercial activity associated with Phase ]b would be buffered from nearby residential uses by existing topography (particularly along Baldwin Avenue due to the existing berm), matwe landscapin~ within the adjacent roadway medians and along the adjacent roadways, and to some extent by existing structures. In addition, the proposed uses would be located at a sufficient distance from the residentia] uses such that local roadway noise would remain the predominant noise source in the Project azea. Thus, none of the thresholds of significance would be exceeded as no significant changes in ambient noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors would occur as a result of on-site commercial retail uses associated with Phase Ib. (Addendum, p. 92) The outdoor space proposed as part of Phase lb would be located within the central interior portion of the Phase lb improvements, with the majority of the outdoor space surrounded on al] sides by the new buildings. This outdoor space may include an outdoor paa ng system and outdoor cafe and restaurant seating with amplified musia The average (LeQ) noise level generated by outdoor azea activity (including amplified sound) would be 52 dBA Lw (1-hour) at City atArcedia Weatfield San[e Anita February 2007 ~ Page z2 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findin;s 300 feet and 49 dBA Leq (1-hour) at 400 feet. Thus, noise levels along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive at sensitive receptors would be less than the 55 dBA Leq noise level established in Section 46103 of the Arcadia Municipal Code for amplified sound. In addition, the variation in the topography and proposed heights of the Phase lb buildings would result in additional attenuation from intervening structures. (Addendum, pp. 93-93j The maacimum traffic noise level increase associated with traffic from Phase lb would be along roadways adjacent to the Project site. The noise leve] increase would be 0.1 dBA along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. By way of reference, a 1 dBA increase in noise level is an almost imperceptible increase even under laboratory conditions. Overall, traffic associated with the Phase lb would not perceptibly chanae the noise environment and would result in a less than si~nificant impact. (Ihid) Vibration Ground-borne vibration for Phase lb would be generated primarily durinp the site clearing, excavation, and grading processes when heavy materials are moved. The peak particle velocity (PPV) from bulldozer and heavy truck operations is shown to be 0.089 PPV and 0.076 PPV, respectively, at a distance of 25 feet The majority of construction activity would be further than 300 feet from the neazest sensitive receptor and well below the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) established PPV threshold of 0.2 inch per second. The distance to horse stables located at Santa Anita Racetrack is approximately 1,300 feet. At this distance vibration levels would be even lower and well below the FTA established PPV threshold. Excavation for the parking structure would be conducted using excavators which do not generate substantial vibration ]evels. In addition, no pile driving activities would be required during construction of the proposed structures. (Addendum, p .94J Post-construction on-site activities would be limited to commercia] uses that would not generate excessive groundborne noise or vibration. As such, potential vibration impacts associated with Phase lb would be less than sia ificant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. (Ibid) 4. Phase 2 Impacts Construction noise at sensitive receptors resulting from construction of Phase 2 would be buffered by existing topography (particularly along Baldwin Avenue due to the existing berm), mature landscaping within the adjacent roadway medians and along the adjacent roadways, and existing structures. In addition, the construction of such future uses would be located at a sufficient distance from the residential uses such that local roadway noise would remain the predominant noise source in the Project area. Thus, temporary construction activity noise levels would only be intermittently noticeable to nearby residential uses. In addition, as with the Certified EIR, future development of the remainin~ entitlement would be subject to the adopted of Arcadia ~ary 2007 PAPP. Ji Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings mitigation measures. As a result, construction noise impacts associated with development of Phase 2 would be ]ess than significant. (Addendum, p. 94J Noise from commercia] activity of Phase 2 would be buffered from nearby residential uses by existing topography (particularly along Baldwin Avenue due to the existing berm), mature landscaping within the roadway medians and along the adjacent roadways, and likely by existing structures. In addition, the proposed uses would be located at a sufficient distance from the residential uses such that loca] roadway noise would remain the predominant noise source in the Project area. No significant changes in ambient noise levels for nearby sensitive receptors would occur as a result of on-site commercial uses associated with development of Phase Z.: (Addendum, pp. 94-95) ~ The maximum traffic noise level increase associated with Phase 2 would be along roadways adjacent to the Project site. The maximum noise level increase would be 0.1 dBA and 03 dBA along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue, respectively. As with the findings of the Certified EIR, traffic associated with Phase 2 would not perceptibly change the noise environment and would result in a less than significant impact. (Addendum, p. 95) Regarding potential vibration impacts, it is anticipated that the equipment to be used during construction of Phase 2 would not cause excessive groundbome noise or vibration. Post- construction on-site activities would be limited to commercial uses that would not generate excessive groundbome noise or vibration. As such, potential impacts associated with the Phase 2 improvements would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. (Addendum, p. 95) 5. Cumulative Impacts With the exception of the senior housing development on Huntington Drive and the racetrack mall development project, the related projects are located at a distance from the site that would preclude cumulative impacts associated with construction and on-site operational noise ]evels. The proposed senior housing development is located to the south of the Westfield Santa Anita site, across Huntington Drive, an eight lane roadway that includes a median with inature landscaping as well as landscaping on either side of the roadway. In addition, the Phase lb improvements would be located within the southwest portion of the Westfield Santa Anita site and, thus, would be separated from uses proposed within the racetrack mall development project by existing buildings and surface parking areas. While the construction of the racetrack mall development project may have some overlap with the Phase lb improvements, constnxction activities would be suf5ciently physically separated by distance and infervening structures, both of which would limit the potential for any combined effect. Thus, noise levels from the combined construction sites would not be substantially different than noise levels associated with each individual construction site. The Phase lb noise level is substantially less than ambient conditions and would increase the construction noise level from the racetrack mall development City af Arcatl February 2007 Wes[field Santa Ani[e Page 24 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings project by 0.1 dBA (i.e., from 74.0 dBA to 74.1 dBA), and the potential for any cumulative effect would not be substantially different than project construction noise levels identified for Phase lb improvements or the racetrack mall development project. Other projects within the vicinity (e.g., Methodist Hospital Master Plan and the recreational community center) are located even further away than the racetrack mall development project and Phase lb construction noise would contribute even less to the combined noise levels. Thus, the Project would not contribute to significant cumulative construction noise impacts. (Addendum, p. 97) Noise levels associated with operation of Phase lb wou]d be similar to existing noise levels and would be buffered from sensitive residential uses by topography (particularly along Baldwin Avenue) and mature landscaping along adjacent roadways and within the roadway medians. In addition, the proposed uses within Westfield Santa Anita would be locaYed at a sufficient distance from the residential uses and the senior housing development such that local roadway noise would remain the predominant noise source in the Project area. The racetrack mall development project would be reviewed by the City and would be required to comply with applicable noise standards for construction and operation of the new shopping center. Assuming compliance with these standards, cumulative noise impacts from the related projects including the racetrack mall development project, if approved, together with the Westfield Project, ,would be less than significant. (Ibid) With regard to cumulative mobile noise impacts, the maximum traffic noise level increase associated with cumulative traffic would be along roadways near the Project site. The maximum cumulative noise level increase (i.e., Existing (2005) conditions compared with the Cumulative Base (2015) with the Phase 2 improvements conditions) would be 1.6 dBA and would occur along segments of Huntington Drive. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, traffic noise associated with cumulative traffic would not be perceptible and would be less than the 3.0 dBA significance threshold at all roadway segments analyzed. Therefore, cumulative traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 98% 6. Addendum Findings With incorporation of the mitigation measure, noise impacts associated witt~ constrnction activities would be less than significant. In addition, as demonstrated above, noise levels associated with operation of the proposed Project would be ]ess than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb would not result in new or substantially worsen noise impacts. Therefore, noise impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of environmental impacts evaluated, in the Certified EIR for the Project. (Ibid.) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen noise impacts. With incorporation of the mitigation measure, Phase Westfield Santa Anifa 2007 Page 25 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings 2's noise impacts would also be reduced to less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) F. Public Services Fire Protection Services 1. Project Impacts in the Cerfified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that paramedic response times and service would remain within the standards in the Project area even with implementation of the Project. Compliance with fire protection desia standards would ensure that future developrnent within the area does not inhibit the ability of fire protection or paramedic crews to respond at optimum levels. Therefore, Project impacts on fire services would be less than signi5cant. With regard to cumularive impacts, the Findings stated that the need for additional personnel and materials would be reviewed periodically as cumulative development occurs. Implementation of the mitigation measure below would assist the City in meeting cumulative growth-driven demands for fire protection services and would offset any significant cumulative impacts related to the Project. (Addendum, p. ]Olj 4.6.11 The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fre flows, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availabiliry, fzre sprinkler system, etc. (Addendum, pp. 100-101) _ 2. Phase la Impacts Phase la, which resulted in an increase in commercial uses and on-site occupancy, has increased the demand for fire protection services at the site. A large portion of the initial increase in demand for fire protection services that occurred during the time ]eading up to and after Phase la opened in October 2004 was associated with false alarms and the need for inspections as new stores were opened. In addition, Westfield modified its internal operational practices at the shopping center to address the increase in calls associated with false alanns by: (1) replacing its fire/life safety contractor with Cal Protection, which is implementing a new, comprehensive fire/life safety program at Westfield Santa Anita; (2) creating a dedicated Facilities Management/Property Management professiona] position at the site whose responsibilities include focusing on fire/life safety systems and increased coordination with the Fire Department; and (3) modifying its procedures to proactively address false alarms during construction. As part of its responsibilities, Cal Protection inspects the fire alann systems and City of Arcadia N'estfield Sa~rta Anita February 2007 Page 26 Statement of Environmenta] Effects and public announcement voice evacuation system annually, inspects the fire sprinkler system four times each yeaz, and inspects the fire sprinkler pump annually. (Addendum, pp101-102) Phase la was constructed and is operated in accordance witY~ the applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures pursuant to the mitigation measure identified in the Certified EIR. In addition, the Applicant has coordinated with the City to ensure that adequate fire access is provided throughout the shopping center. Impacts on fire protection services have been reduced to ]ess than significant levels with incoxporation of the mitigation measure and further reduced with the enhancements discussed above. (Addendum, p. ]02) 3. Phase lb Impacts None of the commercial uses (e.g., retail, specialty stores, etc.) proposed for Phase lb would substantially alter the type of fire impacts on the Project site. The typical range of fire service calls expected to be generated by Phase lb uses would be typical of those generated for commercia] uses, including structure fires, garbage bin fires, vehicle fires, and electrical fires. (Ibid.j Phase lb is anticipated to increase the demand for fire protection services and would contribute to a cumulative increase in the demand for fire protection services. The increase in demand for fire protection services would include increased station and equipment maintenance, training, fire inspection, as well as emergency responses. The increased demand for fire protection services may also affect response times when simultaneous calls from adjacent agencies in need of a unit occur. (Ibid.) Phase lb would generate an estimated 15 incremental annua] calls for service, resulting in an increased demand for 0.19 full-time equivalent (FTE) firefighters per yeaz with an associated annual cost of approximately $20,892. Phase Ib would generate approximately $543,000 in annual tax revenues, or nearly 12 times the incremental costs for both fire and police personnel generated by Phase lb. While the Project would also generate the need for inspector staff time for plan checks and construction inspections, as acknowledged by the City, payment of the fire inspection fees required by the City of Arcadia would cover the costs associated with these inspector activities in their enYirety. Fnrthermore, Phase lb would be required Co comply with applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures. Mitigation measure adopted in the Findirigs for the Certified EIR and the following new mirigation measure would also be implemented. (Addendum, pp. 102-104) • The City will annually review fire response times and will commit sufficient funding from project generated tax revenues to provide sufficient staffing to maintain the City's standard response times. (Addendum, p. 10~ Westtield Santa Auita City of Arcedia Fe6ruary 2007 Page 27 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings With implementation of these mitigation measures, Phase lb impacts on fire protection services would be reduced to less than significant levels. 4. Phase 2 Impacts Phase 2 would not propose uses that would substantially alfer the types of fire impacts on the Project site. Due to the introduction of additional commercial uses at Westfield Santa Anita, Phase 2 is anticipated to increase the demand for fire protection services. Phase 2 would also be required to implement the mitigation measure adopted in the Findings for the Certified EII2, as well as the new mitigation measure identified above. Similaz to the Phase lb improvements, new commercial uses proposed as part of Phase 2 would also generate municipal revenue that would cover the costs associated with the incremental demand for fire protection services generated by the Phase 2 uses. As such, fire protection service impacts of Phase 2 would be less than significant and, thus, would be consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 104) 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects in the project vicinity, in conjunction with development of Phase lb and buildout of Phase 2, would cumulatively increase the demand for fire protection services. As with the proposed Project, each of the related projects would be required to comply with applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures. In addition, related projects would be subject to discretionary review on an individual basis to determine appropriate mitigation measures for reducing impacts on fire protection services. Furthermore, the need for additional fire protection services associated with cumulative growth may be addressed through the City's annua] budgeting process and capital improvement programs, should the City of Arcadia determine that service improvements are necessary. Provided that personnel and facilities are expanded to meet additional service demands, cumulative impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. In addition, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, Phase lb and Phase 2 would not conh-ibute to a cumulatively considerable impact. (Addendum, p. 105J 6. Addendum Findings Based on the discussion above, with incorporation of the mitigation measures together with the revenue generated by Phase lb that would off-set the incremental costs for fire protection generated by Phase lb uses, impacts to fire protection services would be reduced to less than significant levels. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb would not iesult in new or substantially worsen fire protection impacts. Therefore, fire protection sen-ice impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 10~ Citv of Arcad February 2007 Santa Page 28 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on fire protection services. With incorporation of the mitigation measures together with the revenue generated by Phase 2 that would off-set the incremental costs for fire protection generated by Phase 2 uses, Phase 2's impacts on fire protection services would be reduced to less than significant levels and would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) Police Services 1. Projecf Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that potential concerns with regard to security of the pazking structure would be mitigated. With implementation of the mitigation measures below, all potential Project-related police impacts would be reduced to a level below significance. The Findings for the Csrtified EIR also concluded that to the extent that police department resources are expanded in an efficient manner in accordance with growth trends, no significant cumulative impacts related to police protection services are anticipated. (Addendum, p.108) 4.6.2.1 The parking structure(s) shall be designed to create an open . environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egr^ess to the structure. (Ibid.) ~ 4.6.2? A security plan shall be submitted to and approved 6y the Arcadia Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any structures ineluding the parking structure(s). (Ibid.) 2. Phase la Impacts Phase ] a, which opened in October 2004, generated a need for additional police protection services at Westfield Santa Anita. Based on recent data, calls for police service volumes are higher than calls for service volumes prior to opening of Phase.la. In addition, the Police Department has also stated that additional calls and reports generated have increased the workload for the cunenf detective bureau. (Ibid.) The Phase 1a parking facility was constructed pursuant to the mitigation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR. As part of these mitigation measures, a security plan was submitted and approved by the Police Chief. As part of the security plan and in coordination with the City of Arcadia, the number of on-site security officers patrolling the site has been increased, and a closed circuit television (CCTV) system has been installed throughout the site. In addition, "Code Blue" emergency call stations within the pazking structures have been implemented for the pazking garage area. This new surveillance system together with emergency W"es[field Santa Anita City of Arcadia FebruBry 2001 . Page 29 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings phone access has greatly enhanced security at the site. Recently, in cooperation with the Arcadia Police Department, cameras were ins4alled at all entrances to the center. Westfield has also earmarked funds for a 2icense plate identification program to be implemented by the Police Deparhnent. In addition, supplemental security was implemented to specifically address special events at the AMC Theatre and the operation of Dave and Busters. (~lddendum, pp. 108-109) With compliance with the mitigation measures set forth in the Certified EIR as well as additional security features described above that have been implemented by Westfield, impacts on police service as a result of Phase 1 a were reduced to less than significant levels. (Addendum, p. 109) ~ 3. Phase lb Impacts As Phase lb would increase the number of visitors, patrons, and employees on-site, the demand for police protection services would increase. (Addendum, p. ]09) Phase lb would generate an estimated 187 incremental annual calls for service, resulting in an increase in the demand for 0.16 full-time equivalent (FTE) police oFficers per year and 0.06 FTE detectives per year with an associated combined annual cost of $23,188. Phase lb would generate approximately ~543,000 in annual tax revenues, or nearly 12 times the incremental costs for both fire and police protection personnel generated by Phase lb. (Addendum, pp. 109-110) In addition, as part of the Projecf and at the request of the Police Department, the proposed underground parking facility would be equipped with a radio antenna system to boost and ensure effective radio communications by patrol officers through both the police unit radio and the patrol officer's portable radio system. Furthermore, the Applicant would continue to implement a variety of ineasures intended to improve its on-site security, including utilization of off-duty police officers from local and neighboring jurisdictions to supplement existing center security. (Addendum, p. 110) The Phase lb improvements would also implement the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR reaarding the Project, as well as the new miCigation measure provided below regarding funding to maintain standazd response times. • The City will annually review police response times and will commit sufficient funding from project generated tax revenues to provide sufficient staffing to maintain the City's response tnnes. (Addendunz, p. 112) • Implementation of these mitigation measures together with the existing and praposed security features on-site would reduce impacts on p,olice protection to less tban significant levels.. . (Addendum, p. 110 City at Arcadia W'estfield San[a Anita February 2007 Page 30 ° Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings 4. Phase 2 Impacts As Phase 2 would increase the number of visitors, patrons, and employees on-site, the demand for police protection services would increase. However, Phase 2 would also be required to implement the mitigation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR, which include incorporating design features to enhance on-site security, as well as the mitigation measure provided above regarding funding to maintain standard response times. Similar to the Phase lb improvements, new commercial uses proposed as part of Phase 2 would also generate considerable municipal revenue fhat would be sufficient to cover the cosrs associated with the incremental demand for police protection services generated by the Phase 2 uses. As such, police protection impacts associated with Phase 2 would be less than significant and would be consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. I10-111) 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects in the project vicinity identified in conjunction with development of Phase lb and buildout of Phase 2, wouid cumulatively increase the deniand for police protection services. Related projects would be evaluated on an individual basis to determine appropriate mitigation measures for reducing impacts to police protection services. In addition, the cost of additional police personnel and equipment would be offset by any increased revenue that may be generated by the Westfield Project and related projects. Furthermore, the need for additional police protection associated with cumulative growth may be addressed through the City's annual budgeting process and capital improvement programs should the City of Arcadia determine that service improvements are necessary. In addition, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, Phase lb and Phase 2 would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. (Addendum, p. I11) 6. Addendum Findings . With implementation of the mitigarion measures identified in the Certified EIR as well as a mitigation measure provided above, together with Yhe revenue generated by Phase lb that would offset the incremental cosCS for police protection generated by Phase lb uses, impacts to police protection services would be reduced to less than significant. As such, Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to police protection. Therefore, police protection impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. . (Addendum, p. 112) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on police protection services. With incorporation of the : mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as well as the mitigation measure provided above, together with the revenue generated by Phase 2 thaY would offset the incremental costs for Wes[field Santa Febmary 2007 Page 31 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings police protection generated by Phase 2 uses, Phase 2's impacts on police protection services would also be reduced to less than significant and would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.j G. Transportation/Traffic 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that with implementation of the Project mitigation measures, each of the analyzed intersections would operate at background levels of service (i.e., Certified EIR base year 2000 without the Project) or better in 2002 and 2015. The intersection of Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard would operate, as it did during the Certified EIR base year of 2000, at an unacceptable level of service with or without the Project. All other intersections in the 2002 condition would operate at acceptable levels of service with Project specific improvements. Therefore, Project specific impacts would be mitigated to a level below significance. (Addendum, pp. 124-125) Except for Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, cumulative intersection impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through Project mitigation measures. Intersection deficiencies at Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard aze due to cumulative background growth and not the Project. The conditions at this intersection would essentially be the same with or without the Project. Therefore, the ProjecYs contribution to the significant cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant with implementation of the following mitigation measures. (Addendum, p. 125j 4.73.1. In order to mitigate the traffic problems, there are two means by ~vhich traffic mitigations may be paid: a. The Project applicant shal! participate in area wide traffc improvements by participating in the City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program, if adopted by the City of Arcadia. The Project applicant shall be entitled to credit against this Fee Program for the costs of Project-funded off-site circulation improvements, to the extent that such improvements provide . circulation capaciry in excess of the capacity required to serve traffic generated by the Project; or ~ b. If the City of Arcadia has not adopted a Traffic Impact Fee P~~ogram by the time building permits are issued for the Project, the Project shall participate in the area wide traffc improvements identified in the Ciry's Transport¢tion Master Plan, as adopted, on a pra rat¢ `fair share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). A nzrus based formula would ensure that the Project fully compensates for its share of the cost of improvements to roadways within or near 2007 Wea[fleld Sante Anita Page 3z Statement of Environmental Effecu and the studv area that may be impaeled by the Project. A ne~zs study to determine ` fair share ° responsibility shall be completed by the Project Appltcant at the time engirteering plaras are initiated for the roadway improvement. A nexus based formula would ensure that the Project fully compensates for its share of the cost of "new" capacity that must be provided at various locations. (Addendum, p. 121) 4.7.3?. The Project Applicant shall be requzred to complete or bond for the cost of e~igineering and construction for the foUowing improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits within Phase 1(up to 400, D00 square feet GLA). If an improvement is identif:ed in the City's adopted Transpo~•tation Master Plan, the City may require that the appticant provide the City with the cost of s¢id improvement(s) rather than construct the improvement(s). The funding provided shall be used to construct the improvement identified in the Trartsportation Master Plan. The Project specific improvemerats are as follows: a. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue /W~ Add a separate right turn lane on the northbound approach. b. I210 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue Restripe eastbound approach for a separate left turn lane, an optional left or right lane and an exclusive right turn lane. Caltrans may decide to retain the through movement option from the center lane. ~ c. Huntington Drive a~ Rose~nead Boulevard Provide a separate right turn lane on northbound and eastbound approach by restriping and modify the traff c signals to accommodate the new right turn lanes, if necessary. Detttited strtping and signal plans shall be prepared and submitted to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works for review and approval. (Addendum, pp. I21-122J 9J.3.3. The Project .4pplicant shatl be requiYed to complete or bond for the cost of engineering and construction for the following improvements prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy within Phase 2(up to 600, 000 square feet GLA). If an improvement included in the following list conflicts with an improvement identified in the Ciry's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the Ciry may require that the Applicant provide the City with the cost of the conflicting improvement rather than construct the improvement. The funding provided shall be used to construct the improvement identi~ed in the Transportation Master Plan. The Project specific improvements are as follows. a. Driveway A@ Baldwin Avenue ~ Wes2field Senta Ani[a Ciry of Areadia - ^ February 2007 Page 33 Statement of Environmental Effects and Fjndings Add a separate righllurn lane ofa the westbound approach. b. Driveway C@ Baldwin Avenue .Add a separaze right turn lane on the westbound approach. c. Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue Add a second norlhboaer~d left turn lane and also add a separate right turn lane on the eastbound approach. d. Duarte Road C2, Baldwin Avenue Add a right turn and a second left turn lane on the northbound approach and a right turn lane on the westbound approach. e. Huntington Drive @ Sunset Boulevard Add a separate left turn lane on the southbound approach. f Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place Restripe westbound approach for an exclusive right turn, one shared through/right and two through lanes. g. Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street Restripe northhound approach to provide for two right turn lanes, one through lane and a left turn lane. h. Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue Add a separate right tur^n lane on the northbound approach. i. Huntington Drive @ Holly Avenue fldd a second southbound nght turn lane. Addendurn, pp. 122-123) 4J.3.5. The Project Applicant's final design for any new internal ~ circulation alterations/changes regarding the internal circulation system sl:all comply with the following design guidelines to ihe satisfacfion of the Ciry Traffic Engineer. a. The internal circulation system shall consist of a ring road, a system of perimeter roads, appropriately laid out parking aisles, landscaping and intersections ¢nd incorporate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle • access/connections. Citv of Arcadia Wes[field San[a Anita February 2007 Page 34 Statement of Environmental Effects and b. Primary circulatiorz shall be provided by the ring road. The site circulation system shall be designed to encourage use of the ring road and discourage use of the penmeter roadways for movement from one part of the site to another. Horizontal curvature and sight distances shall be designed for at least 30 miles per hour (mph). Curve radif and sight distance requirements for the ring road shall be the same as for the niajor colleetor roads. c. On site vehicular volumes and speeds shall be controlled by the physical design of fhe parking lots and the perimeter roudway in order to reduce the potential and number of serious pedestrian vehicular conflicts. The mazimum width of the perimeter roads shall not exceed 29 feet, and the minimum inside radii shall be behveen 30 and 50 feet. All perimeter roads shall be designed as ~ fire lanes so that no stopping/no parking rules can be enforced. d. Landscaping shall be used for delineation of on site circulation features and to discourage drivers from traversing designated areas e. The (three way) intersections shait be used for a11 on site intersections in order to minimize conflicts and simplify maneuver areas. The intersections shall be ' designed. to the same geometric standards as the intersections of comparable classes of public streets f. Adequate site distances shall be provided at all on site irttersections and on horizontal curves. Minimum speeds for sight distance determination shall be 20 mph on Parking aisles and perimeter roads, asad 30 mph on the ring road. (Addendum, pp. 123-124) 2. Phase la Impacts Construction of Phase la occurred in accordance with City requirements. These requirements include submitYing haul routes to the City for approval and limiting conshuction truck trips during peak hours. Thus, construction traffic impacts were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 125) The existing uses, which include Phase la, result in a total of 37,132 daily trips, which includes 3,432 r.~vt. peak hour trips. The Applicant has provided a bond to the City to implement the three improvements identified in the Certified EIR that should be implemented with Phase la. Subsequent analyses prepazed for the Phase lb Supplemental analysis showed that the three improvements were not necessary to mitigate the actual impacts of Phase la because background and/or related project traffic at these three intersections had not grown at the rate anticipated in the Certified EIR, Nevertheless, the Applicant has provided an improvement bond and is pursuing the improvements with the appropriate agencies. Caltrans and Los Angeles County are evaluating improvement plans for the three intersections and will implement the City of Arcatli February 2007 Westfield Santa Page 35 Sta[ement of Enviconmentai Effects and Findings improvements when designs are complete. Thus, the Phase la improvements resulted in a less than significant traffic impact. (,4ddendum, pp. 125-126) Phase la also included modifications to the on-site circulation system and parking access. These internal circulation system modifications have improved access to on-site parking and enhanced the capacity of vehicular flow throughout the property and at entryways. (Addendum, p. 126-127) Furthermore, roadway improvements within the site were reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with Code requirements for design and access, including those regarding emergency access (e.g., turning radii, intemal road widths, and clearance to sky heights). Therefore, Phase la impacts to emergency access were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 127) 3. Phase lb Impacts Construction Construction Yraffic from Phase lb would consist of trips generated by employee vehicles (cars and light trucks), trucks for material delivery and removal, and trucks for hauling export soil. Construction employees' trips would not coincide with the peak shopping hour trips. No significant intersection impacts are expected to result from the addition of construction worker traffic to the streef system. The pofential conflict between construction worker traffic and traffic to/from the adjacent Racetrack would also be minimal as construction trips would occur dunng non-peak traffic hours. (Addendum, pp. 127-128) With regard to truck trips, the City would require that construction haul routes be identified in advance of any construction activity and that construction truck activity be curtailed during the P.M. peak commute hours. Given the proximity of the site to I-210, it is likely that the truck hau] route would utilize Baldwin Avenue directly to the I-210 interchange at Baldwin. Thus, impacts on the majority of the 23 study intersections would be minimal. During the racing season, the truck traffic could avoid using Gate 8 so as to reduce conflicts with traffic entering and exiting the Racetrack. Furthermore, the City would require that construction trucks travel on the main arterial roadways such as Huntington Drive, Baldwin Avenue, and Duarte Road. Thus, impacts on neighboring residential streets would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 128) The largest amount of truck traffic would be due to construction of the Phase lb underground parking facility. During this phase of construction, however, most of the daily truck traffic would occur outside the peak traffic periods, consistent with City requirements for operating houra (Addendum, pp. 128-129) Furthermore, construction of Phase lb would generally occur in stages (demolition, excavation, construction, interior space merchandising, etc.), thus limiting the effects of truck trips hauling materials to and from the construction site. Truck traffic would be intermittent and City of Arcadia Wes[field Santa Aaita February 2007 ~ " Page 36 Statement of Environmenta] Effects and Findings would vary over the course of the construction period. Overall, construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 129) Oaeration Phase lb would generate approximately 1,823 weekday daily trips, which includes a net increase of 176 P.M. peak hour trips. Phase lb traffic impacts for 21 intersections would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Project. Two intersections, (1) Baldwin Avenue East and Foothill Boulevard and (2) Huntington Drive and I-210 EB Ramps, are projected to operate with higher V/C ratios than anticipated in the Certified EIR, adjusted to year 2008. As under current conditions, the intersection of Huntington Drive and I- 210 EB Ramps is influenced by increased eastbound through traffic levels. Baldwin Avenue East/Foothill Boulevard is influenced by an increase in the related projects covered in the 2006 traffic study as compazed to the Certified EIR. Thus, these intersections are projected to experience increases in V/C ratios due to overall increases in the background traffic levels, not due to traffic generated by Phase 1 a and Phase lb. (Addendum, pp. 130-133% On Saturdays, Phase lb is expected to generate a net increase of approximately 2,282 trips, including a net increase of 232 midday peak hour trips. Phase lb would not result in a significant impact at any of the intersections during the Saturday midday peak hour. (Addendum, p. 137% Phase lb traffic volumes generated by the project would add less than 150 trips per segment on the Interstate 210 freeway near the Project. In addition, Phase lb together with Phase 2, would utilize much less than 1 percent of the capacity of the freeway in the nearby segments (i.e., the Rosemead to Baldwin and Huntington to Myrtle segments). Thus, impacts on the nearby freeway segments would be less than significant. Additionally, Phase ]b would not generate an incremental impact lazge enough to result in a significant impact at any of the six ramp temunals studied. (Addendum, p. 139) With respect to neighborhood diversion, the diversion of trips from an arterial street to a residential street usually occurs as a result of one of two conditions. One condition that leads to neighborhood diversion occurs when the access for a new or existing development lines up directly opposite a residential street, thus encouraging project traffic to use the residential street for access to/from the project. The other condition that leads to neighborhood diversion occurs when a project may add enough traffic to the arterial street system that some of the key intersections along arCerial streets become congested and traffic diverts to parallel residential streets to avoid the new congestion points. In the case of Phase lb, neither of these conditions is projected to occur, and therefore diversion to residential streets is not anticipated. Impacts would be ]ess than significant. (Addendum, pp. 139-140) February 2007 West~eld Santa Page 37 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings An alternate design for the interna] intersection of the shopping center ring road with the Gate 8 roadway was offered by the Applicant. This alternate design was not required as project mitigation. Under this altemate design, future traffic operation at the Gate 8 entrance to the Racetrack and Westfield Santa Anita from Baldwin Avenue with Phase lb and Phase 2 shows minimal queue formation at all the stop-controlled approaches for the two internal intersections. The longest queue presently observed at the southbound lefr-tum lane at the signalized intersection of Baldwin and Driveway A. This queuing in the future would be less than sib ificant, similar to what exists today at this intersection. The altemate design of the interna] intersection of Gate 8 and the shopping center ring road would be able to accommodate the projected Phase lb and Phase 2 traffic levels (even on a Race Day) without backups af~ecting Baldwin Avenue or Race track entry/exits. (Addendum, p. 141) Phase lb would not significantly impact any of the 23 study intersections dunng the weekday p.tvt. peak hour or the Saturday midday peak hour. Therefore, adequate circulation and emergency access of the local street system would be maintained. Additionally, any improvements within public rights-of-way proposed for Phase lb would be implemented in accordance with City requirements, including those set forth by the Arcadia Fire Depathnent regazding desib and access (e.g., turning radii, internal road widths, and clearance to sky heights). Therefore, Phase Ib would not have a significant impact on emergency access. (Addendum, p. 142) Additionally, Phase lb would not include any design features or incompatible uses that could pose a traffic hazard. Furthermore, Phase lb would not include the construction of any structures (i.e., high tower elements, higb-rise buildings) which would have an effect on air traffic pattems. Impacts related to these issues would be ]ess than si~ificant. (Ibid.) 4. Phase 2 ImpacYs Buildout of Phase 2 would be constructed in accordance with City requirements. These requirements include submitting haul routes to the City for approval and limiting construction truck trips during peak hours. In addition, truck traffic associated with any import or export of soil would be expected to occur outside of the peak traffic periods. Thus, the construction traffic impacts associated with buildout of Phase 2 would be expected to be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 143) Phase 2 would generate 5,620 daily trips, which would include 497 trips in the p.1~. peak hour. Development of Phase 2 would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Huntina on Drive during the P.Nt. peak hour. However, with incorporation of Phase 2 miYigation rrieasures identified in the Certified EIR, this impacf would be reduced to a less than significant IeveL An analysis of the impacts of Phase lb and Phase 2 was also completed in the Traffic Study. Based on that analysis, similar to development of Phase 2, development of Phase lb and Phase 2 together would result in one significant intersection City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita February 2007 - . Page 38 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings impact, which would also occur at the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington •Drive during the P.mt. peak hour. This impact would also be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the Phase 2 mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR. This conclusion of less than significant impacts is consistent with the Findings of the Certified EIR, which concluded that all project-related impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with incorporation of mitigation measures. In addition, these impacts of Phase 2 and Phase lb in 2015 are less than those indicated in the Certified EIR, where the Project in 2015 resulted in significant impacts at 11 intersections prior to mitigation. (Addendum, pp. 143-146) The impacts of Phase 2 traffic can be fully mitigated such that sif,mificant impacts at the key intersections along the arterial corridors serving the shopping center would not occur. In addition, Phase 2 would not result in any changes to access that would encourage Project traffic to use nearby residential streets for access to/from the Project. Therefore, significant impacts associated with neighborhood traffic diversion are also not anticipated as a result of full buildout of the Westfield Santa Anita Project. (Addendum, p. 150) 5. Cumulative Impact Cumulative traffic impacts were incorporated into the analysis of Phase ]b and Phase 2 traffic impacts. Each of the related projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that impacts related to construction traffic, emer~ency access, hazardous design features, and air traffic patterns would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would have no significant cumulative impact on these issues. (Addendum, pp. 1.i0-I51) 6. Transportation Master Plan Impacts With regard to impacts on ]ong-range intersection performance of the street system, the City of Arcadia's Transportation Master Plan and Impact Fee Program identifies various transportation improvements necessary to improve deficient intersections ]ocated throughout the City and identifies a funding mechanism for these improvements. Taking into account traffic generated by Phase lb and Phase 2, improvements in addition to those identified in the City's Transportation Master.Plan would be needed to achieve the tazget V/C for the Ciry by the General Plan Buildout Year of 2015. These are: • Baldwin Avenue East & Foothill Boulevazd - Add a second eastbound ri~ht-turn lane. • Baldwin Avenue & Duarte Road - Add a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. Add a second westbound through lane to provide the westbound approach with two left-turn, one through and one shared through/right- turn lane. - Westfield Santa Anita Ci[}• of Arcadia February 2007 Pa~e 39 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings With incorporation of the two improvements listed above, all study intersections would meet the City's target V/C of 0.90 or better. These improvements are not the responsibility of the Westfield Santa Anita Phase ]b or Phase 2 developments. (Addendum, pp. l.i1-152j Parking 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that at that time, with the Project, the net new GLA would be 1,522,451 sq. ft., and a total of 7,232 parking spaces would be required to accommodate existing and future land uses based on the City of Arcadia parking Code. The Findings concluded that a shared parking analysis shows that the Project would have a parking demand of 6,364 during weekday and 6,340 spaces during weekend. This is a ratio of 4.18 spaces per 1,000 square feet gross leasable area. .(Addendum, p. I5~ 2. Phase la Impacts Phase la and improvements to the southeastern pazking lot in August 200~ resulted in a current on-site parking supply of 5,927 spaces. Based on a calculated Code requirement of5,403 parking spaces, there is currently a surplus of 524 parking spaces on-site. (Ibid.j The existing shopping center with Phase 1 a improvements has a peak parking demand of 6,610 parking spaces on a December weekend. The existing parking supply is sufficient to meet the parking demand during all other times of the year. The steady state parking demand for a typical month is 4,713 spaces on a weekend and 4,305 spaces during the weekday. Thus, there is currently a surplus of 1,214 spaces on a typical weekend and 1,622 spaces on a typical weekday. In summary, the parking demand for Phase 1 a and the pre-existing shopping center is met on-site during all other times of the year except on weekends at times during the holiday shopping month of December. As the peak parking shortage is temporary in nature and is accommodated through use of designated off-site parking areas, parking impacts of Phase la are less than significant. Thus, parking impacts of Phase la are within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 157-158) 3. Phase lb Impacts Upon buildout of Phase lb, a total parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would be provided on-site. With completion of Phase lb, the on-site parking supply would total 6,204 parking spaces, thus exceeding the City requirement of 5,744 spaces by 460 spaces. (Addendum, p. 158) February 2007 Wes[field Santa Anita Page 40 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Development of Phase lb would result in a typical parking demand of up to 5,125 spaces except for the peak weekend in December. Thus, the parking supply would 6e sufficient to meet typical parking demand. During the peak month of December, a peak parking demand of 6,849 would occur on the weekends. The proposed parking supply would not be sufficient to meet this peak parking demand for only one hour of the day on December Saturdays. The Applicant would submit to the City an off-site pazking management plan each year to address parking demand during December weekends. With this pazking management plan as a Project feature, parking impacts of Phase.lb would be less than sienificant. (Addendum, pp. 1.i8-159) 4. Phase 2 Impacts While the details of the parking plans for Phase 2 have not yet been defined, it is expected that Phase 2 would result in an estimated parking supply of 7,235 spaces for the entire site. With completion of Phase 2, the on-site parking supply would total 7,23~ parking spaces, thus exceeding the City requirement of 6,698 spaces by 537 spaces. (Addendum, p. 159) Development of Phase 2 would result in a typical parking demand of up to 5,960 spaces throughout the site except for the peak weekend in December. Thus, there would be a surplus of at least 1,27> parking spaces during a typical month. On the peak Saturday in the month of December, Westfield Santa Anita with development of Phase 2 would result in a parking demand of 7,983 spaces. The proposed pazking supply would not be sufficient to meet this peak parking demand for only one hour of the day. Furthermore, the Project feature to provide off-site emp]oyee parking during December weekends would also be implemented for Phase 2. ,Thus, pazking impacts of Phase 2 would be less than sib ificant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR.- (Addendum, pp. 159-160) 5. Cumulative Impacts Two related projects are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site: the senior housing project at 650 West Huntington Drive located across Huntington Drive and the racetrack mall development project, which bounds the site to the north and east. The senior housing project is expected to generate minimal parking demand and is anricipated to provide on-site pazking in accordance with City code requirements. The racetrack mall development project would contribute substantially to the cumulative parking demand in the Project azea. It is expected that as part of the environmental review and approval process, the racetrack mall development project would be required to demonstrate that adequate parking capacity would be provided. In addition, as described above, development of Phase lb and Phase 2 would include a Project feature that would ensure that sufficient parking would be provided for Westfield Santa Anita. Thus, cumulative pazking impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 160) February 2007 We6lfeld Se0I8 Page 41 Statement of Environmental Effects and 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to parking. Therefore, parking impacts of Phase Ib would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen parking impacts. The impacts of Phase 2 on parking would be less than significant and would also be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. . (I6id.) A. Utilities/Service Systems Electrical Service 1. Project Impacts The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the Project would comply with all the State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Arcadia codes to reduce the ProjecYs electrical consumption. Further, Southem California Edison (SCE) has indicated its ability to serve the Project and implementation of the mitigation measure below would further reduce any identified impacts on electrical service to a level below significance. .(Addendum, p. 162) 4.8.11. The Project Applicant slaall coordinate with SCE prior to the issuance of grading permits to address potential cortflicts betrveen existing electrical facilities and new construction on the Project site. .(Addendum, p. 161) • 2. Phase la Impacts Phase la generates electrical demand of approximately 3,278,769 kilowatt hours per year. Phase la incorporated the mitigation measure cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR, which required coordination with SCE prior to the issuance of grading permits. In addition, Phase 1 a also complied with the energy conservation requirements within Title 24 as well as the City of Arcadia Code requirements regarding use of electricity. As such, consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts on electrical service resulting from Phase la were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 162) 3. Phase lb Impacts Phase lb would generate an electrical demand of approximately 1,558,250 kilowatt-hours per yeaz. Phase lb's electrical consumption would be only a limited fraction (approximately 18 Citv of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita February 2007 Page 42 Statement of Environmental Effecu and Findings percent) of total consumption projected for the Project studied in the Certified EIR (8,671,250 kilowatt-hours per year). SCE previously determined that it would be able to serve the Project with some rearrangement of its facilities, which the Applicant is to coordinate with the utility provider. In addition, SCE has recently confirmed that they would provide service for the Phase lb improvements. As with Phase la, Phase lb would implement the mitigation measure cited in the Findings of the Certified EIR. Thus, any improvements to the electrical system would be provided through coordination with SCE. In addition, Phase lb would also be constructed and operated in accordance with the energy conservation requirements within Title 24 as well as the City of Arcadia Code requirements regarding the use of elecuicity. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb's impacts on electrical service would be less than significant with incorporation of the mitigation measure. Thus electrical impacts of Phase ]b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 16?-163) 4. Phase 2 Impacts Development of the permitted uses for Phase 2 would generate an electrical demand of approximately 3,834,231 kilowatt-hours per year, which would be within the total electrica] demand forecasted for the Project studied in the Certified EIR (8,671,2~0 kilowatt-hours per year). As with Phases la and lb, Phase 2 would also be constructed and operated in accordance with the energy conservation requirements within Title 24 as well as the City of Arcadia Code requirements regarding use of electricity. Implementation of Phase 2 would also be subject to the mitigation measure cited in Findings for the Certified EIR. As such, the electrica] consumption impact of Phase 2 would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 164) 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects, in conjunction with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, would generate a cumulative demand of approximately 54,201,281 kilowatt-hours per yeaz. Each of these projects would be expected to comply with the energy conservation measures set forth in Title 24 as wel] as loca] Code requirements pertaining to electricity. (Ibid.) In addition, coordination with the electrical service provider to ensure that ne~ uses within each of these related projects can adequately be accommodated would be required. Moreover, it is expected that service providers would be able to expand services to supply electrical energy for regional gowth. Thus, cumulative electrical service impacts associated with development of the Project, together with the related projects identified, would be less than significant. (Ibid.) City of Arcadia N'esMeld Santa Anita February 2007 Page 43 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to electrica] service. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce impacts to electrical service to a]ess than significant level. Therefore, electrical service impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 16~ Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on electrical service. With incorporation of the mitigation measure, Phase 2's impacts on electrical service would also be less than significant and within the envelope of impacts analyzed in tl~e Certified EIR. Natural Gas Service 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR As concluded in the Findings for the Certified EIR, Southern Califomia Gas (SCG) indicated that existing mains can serve the Project and would not create a significant impact on the environment. In addition, no cumulative impacts to gas services from the Project are anticipated at this time. Therefore, the Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that no significant impacts to natura] gas service are anticipated from the Project and no mitigation is required (Addendum, p. 167) 2. Phase la Impacts Phase la demands approximately 76,916 cubic feet of natural gas per day. Natural gas consumption of Phase la is thus within the 180,313 cubic feeUday forecasted in the Certified EIR for the Project studied in the Certified EIIt. Cunently, natural gas service for Phasa la is adequate. Gas service for Phase la was provided pursuant to the SCG's policies and extension rules on file with the Califomia Public Utilities Commission. In addition, the existing gas mains had sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts associated with natural gas were less than significant. Energy conservation measures set forth in Title 24, which regulates energy consumption in new and existing buildings were also adhered to as they relate to natural gas. (Ibid.) 3. P6ase lb Impacts Operation of Phase lb would demand an estimated 34,560 cubic feet of natural gas per day. SCG indicated that existing mains can serve the entire Project studied in the Certified EIR and would not create a significant impact on the environment such that mitigation measures Ci[y of Arcadie R'estfield Sanb Anita February 2007 Page 44 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings would be required. Thus, as a subset of the Project studied in the Certified EIR, Phase lb would also be adequately served. In addition, SCG has confirmed that adequate natural gas supplies exist in the project vicinity and that gas service can be provided from an existing 6-inch medium pressure gas main in Baldwin Avenue. (Addendum, pp. 167-168) Gas service for Phase lb would be provided in accordance with the SCG's policies and extension rules on file with the Califomia Public Utilities Commission. In addition, Phase lb will comply with the energy conservation measures for natural gas set forth in Title 24. As such, Phase lb impacts on natural gas service would be less than significant. Thus, natural gas service impacts of Phase lb would be the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 168j 4. P6ase 2 Impacts Phase 2 would demand natural gas at a rate of approximately 68,836 cubic feet per day. The provision of natural gas service for Phase 2 would also be subject to SCG's policies and extension rules. In addition, the existing gas mains are expected to be adequate to provide for these uses at the site. Development of Phase 2 will also comply with the energy conservation measwes for natura] gas set forth in Title 24. Consistent with the findinas of the Certified EIR, natural gas service impacts would be less than si~nificant. (Addendum, pp. 168-169J ' 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects, in conjunction with the Project studied in the Certified EIR for which a more conservative consumption factor was utilized, would result in a cumulative demand of approximately 1,271,214 cubic feet of gas per day. Each of the related projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for any specific distribution infrastructure improvements. Each related project would be expected to comply with the SCG's policies as well as energy conservation measures regazding natural gas set forth in Title 24. Moreover, given that the Califomia Energy Commission has projected that sufficient natural gas supplies would be available throughout the State into the future, it is anticipated that service providers would be able to supply natural gas for reoional gowth. Thus, cumulative natural aas impacts associated with development of the Project studied in the'Certified EIR togetber with the related projects would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 169J 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not result in new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to natural gas service: Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIIt, Phase lb impacts on natural gas service would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As such, natural gas impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) February 2007 Wes[fleld Santa Anita Page 45 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findinos Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on natural gas service. Phase 2's impacts on natural gas service would also be less than sia ificant and within the envelope of impacts ana]yzed -in the Certified EIR. /Ibid.) Telephone 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findines for the Certified EIR concluded that Pacific Bell has existing telephone facilities within the Project vicinity and that enhancement and/or extensions of existing facilities may be required to service the Project. However, service to the Project can be provided without any adverse impact on Pacific Bell's ability to provide telephone sen~ice in the area. In addition, Pacific Bel] would be able to accommodate the needs for telephone service generated by this and other projects in the area. Therefore, no significant impacts to telephone services are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Although no mitigation is required, the following mitigation measure was included to enhance the delivery of telephone service to the Project site. (Addendum, p. 172) 4.8.3J.Tl~e Project Applicant shall coordinate with Paciftc Bell prior to the issuance of grading permits regarding the need for additiona! facilities and/or easements. (Ibid.) 2. Impacts of Phase la Phase la represented approximately 43 percent of the floor area and the same types of uses as were studied in the Certified EIR for the Project. Thus, Phase la generates a fraction of the telephone service demand identified in the Certified EIIZ. Telephone service for Phase la improvements is adequately provided by AT&T, successor to Pacific Bell. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts on telephone service from Phase la development were less than significant. (Ibid.)) 3. Impacts of P6ase lb Since the proposed Phase ]b represents only about 19 percent of the floor area and would comprise the same types of uses as were studied in the Certified EII2 for the Project, it would generate only a corresponding fraction of the telephone service demand identified in the Certified EIR. In addition, AT&T has indicated recently that it will provide service for Phase lb improvements at the site. Additionally, Phase lb would incorporate the mitigation measure cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR, which requires coordination with AT&T. Consistent with Citv of Arced~~~ February 2007 Page 46 Statement of Envimnmenta] Effects and Findings the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts on telephone service from Phase Ib development would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 173J 4. Impacts of Phase 2 The Certified EIR states that telephone service for the Project would be accommodated by Pacific Bell, now AT&T. Accordingly, Phase 2, as a subset of the Project studied in the Certified EIR, would be adequately served by AT&T without adverse impacts on telephone services in the area. Additionally, Phase 2 would incorporate Yhe mitigation measure cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR. Consistent with the Findings for the Cenified EIR, impacts on telephone service from development of Phase 2 would be ]ess than significant. Thus, telephone service implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) 5. Cumulative Impacts With regard to cumulative impacts, development of the related projects and other regional growth would increase demand for telephone service. Each of the related projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for any necessary . infrastructure improvements. Assuming that service providers, including AT&T, would expand service capacity to adequately serve that growth as needed, cumulative impacts related to telephone service would be less than significant. (Ibid.) ~ 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to telephone service. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase Ib impacts to telephone service would be less than significant. Telephone service impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 174) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on telephone service. With incorporation of the mitigation measure, Phase 2's impacts on service would also be less than significant and within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid. j Water l. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Cerzified EIR concluded that the azea water distribution system would provide adequate flow to the Project structures. Further, according to the Arcadia Public City of Arcadia H'estfleld Santa Anita February 2007 Page 47 Statement of Environmental Effects and Works Services Department, the Project is not expected to have a significant impact on the City's ability to provide quality water service to the Project and the community. The Certified EIR concludes that implementation of the mitigation measures below would reduce all potentia] water impacts to a level below significance. (Addendum. p. 178) 4.8.4.1. The Project Applicant shall comply with water conservation measures in accordance with AB 32.5 4.8.4,2. The Project applicant shull comply with the Title 17-Bac~~low Regulations. 4.8.4.3. The Project applicant shall replace or repuir detector check vah~es if leaking is found. (IFiid.) With regard to cumulative impacts, the Certified EIR states that Arcadia does not anticipate any problems supplying water service to any current or future development in the City ofArcadia. (Ibid.) 2. P6ase la Impacts Phase 1 a generates water demand at a rate of approximately 86,262 gallons per day (gpd). Phase la incorporated the mitigation measures identified in Resolution No. 6197. Adequate water facilities exist to serve Phase 1 a. In addition, the improvements have been constructed and aze operated in accordance with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code regazding water conservation. The water demand associated with Phase la was accounted for in the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Arcadia. Thus, impacts on•water supply and service were less than significant. (Addendum, pp. 178-179J 3. Phase lb Impacts Phase lb would generate water demand at a rate of approximately 46,719 gpd. This is equivalent to approximately 17.1 million gallons or 52.3 acre feet of water per year. This Phase lb demand would represent approximately 0.27 percent of the forecasted demand for a normal water year, 0.27 percent for a single dry water yeaz, 0.26 percent of multiple dry water yeaz 1, 0.27 percent of multiple dry water year 2, and 0.34 percent of multiple dry water yeaz 3. In addition, the incremental demand from Phase lb would be well below the surplus of water supply sources identified in the UWMP. (Addendum, p. 180j The existing infrastructure would be adequate to accommodate Phase Ib's water demand. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, Phase lb would not adversely affect water service. In addition, the improvements would be constructed and operated in accordance with Titles 20 and 24 of the Califomia Adminisirative Code regardin~ Citv o( Arcadia K'es[field Santa Anite February 2007 Page 48 Statement of Environmencal Effects and Findings water conservation. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb impacts on water supply and water service would be less than significant. (Ibid.% 4. Phase 2 Impacts Development of Phase 2 would result in the consumption of approximately 104,363 gallons of water per day. This increased demand would represent less than one percent of the demand forecasts set forth in the UWMP. Furthermore, the incremental demand from Phase 2 would be below the surplus of water supply sources identified in the UWMP. (Addendum, p. 181) With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, Phase 2 would not adversely affect water service. In addition, the improvements would be constructed and operated in accordance with Titles 20 and 24 of the Califomia Administrative Code regarding water conservation. Consistent with the Findings far the Certified EIR, impacts,of the Phase 2 on water supply and water service would be less than significant. Thus water supply and water service impacts of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) 5. Cumulative Impacts The 15 related projects, in conjunction with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, would generate a total cumul~tive demand of approximately 899,317 gpd of water or 1,007.4 acre feet per year. Based on a comparison of this demand with the surplus of water forecasted for the City of Arcadia water service area, the surplus is expected to be able to accommodate the demand generated by the related projects in the City of Arcadia. ln addition, it is expected that development of the related projects would occur under the following conditions: (a) water service providers, including the City of Arcadia PWS would continue to upgrade their respective infrastructural systems to meet the new requirements when possible; (b) each of the talated projects would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine the need for any specific infrastructure improvements; and (c) projects as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code would be subject to determinations of adequate water supply in accordance with legislation such as SB 610. Thus, significant cumulative water supply impacts would nnt be expected to occur as a result of development of the related projects together with the Project. (Ibid.) 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to water service or water supply. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts to water service would be reduced to a less than significant level with incorporation of the mitigation Citv of Arcadia ~ Westfield Sanm Anita February 2007 Page 49 Scatement of Environmental Effects and Findings measures. Accordingly, Phase lb water demand would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the Project studied in tbe Certified EIR. (Addenduna, p. 183) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on water service or water supply. With incorporation of the mitigation measures, Phase 2's impacts on water service would also be reduced to a less than significant ]evel and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) Sewer Systems 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR As stated in the Findings for the Certified EII2 the Project would generate 0.1 mgd of wastewater. Further, the Findings stated that the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County's (CSDLAC) Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer has an excess available capacity of 2.0 mgd and thus, would able to adequately serve the 0.1 mgd increase generated by the Project. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce all potential wastewater impacts to a level below significance. (Addendum, p. 185) , 4.8.6.1. The Project Applicant shall pa~- all reyuired sewer connection fees to CSDLAC prior to issuance of a sewer connection permit. (Ibid.) Presuming future development is eenerally consistent with existing general plans, the Findings for the Certified EIR stated that CSDLAC does not anticipate problems in supplying cumulative wastewater service to any current and future development in the City. Further, the Project is intended to serve planned population growth within the region and would not result in any direct population increase. Therefore, no sib ificant cumulative impacts to wastewater services are anticipated. (Ibid.j 2. Phase la Impacts Wastewater generation associated with Phase la increased by 69,009 gpd. This represents 0.54 percent of the excess capacity at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation~Plant, and 0.11 percent of the excess capacity at the Joint Water Pollution Contro] Plant. In addition, the Phase 1 a wastewater generation is within the 195,000 gpd forecasted in the Certified EIR for the Project. Phase la also implemented the mitigation measure cited in Resolution No. 6197 regazding payment of sewer connection fees. Thus, wastewater impacts of Phase 1 a were less than significant. (Ibid.) Cia~ of Arcadia ~Yes[field Sen[a Anita Febnary 2007 Page 50 Statement of Envirorunenral Effects and Findings 3, Phase lb Impacts Phase lb would generate 37,375 gpd of wastewater, representing 0.29 percent of the excess capacity at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, and 0.06 percent of the excess capacity at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. In addition, Phase lb wastewater generation would be within the 195,000 gpd forecasted in the Certified EIlZ for the Project. Additionally, with implementation of the mitigation measure cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase lb would have a less than significant impact upon the wastewater collection and treatment systems. Thus, wastewater impacts of Phase Ib would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR and such impacts were within the envelope of impacts analy¢ed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) 4. Phase 2 Impacts Phase 2 would generate 83,491 gpd of wastewater, which would fall within the 195,000 gpd forecasted for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. Subsequent improvements would implement the mitigation measure identified, thereby reducing impacts to wastewater services to less than significant levels. Thus, wastewater implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 186) 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects, in conjunction with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, would cumulatively generate approximately 1,291,558 gpd of wastewater in the future. This wastewater generation would represent approximately 10 percent and 2 percent of the excess capacity at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant and the Joint Water Pollution Control P1anY, respectively. Thus, both faciliries would have adequate treatment capacity to serve related projects and the Project studied in the Certified EIR. In the event that addiYional capacity is needed to accommodate the requirements of other future projects, it is anticipated that service providers would upgrade the respective infrastructural systems, as necessary based on a case-by- case review of each of the related projects. Thus, sia ificant cumulative sewer service impacts would not be expected due to related projects. (Addendum, p. 187) 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on sewer service. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts to sewer service would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measure. Thus, sewer service impacts of Phase lb would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) ~ Ciri of Arcadia Westfield San[a Anita February 2007 Page 51 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts on sewer service. With incorporation of the mitigation measure, Phase 2 impacts on sewer service wou]d also be reduced to a less than significant level and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR: Furthermore, although not expected to be located within the Project site, any industrial waste generators would obtain an Tndustrial Waste Permit from the City as required. (Ibid.) , Solid Waste 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that implementation of tbe mitigation measures below would reduce all potential solid waste impacts fo a level below significance. 4.8.6.1 All subsequent site plans and building plans on the Project site shall incorporate storage and collection recyclables into the Project design. All occupants shall be required to recycle, at a minimum, newspaper, glass bottles, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and P.E.T. bottles to divert recyclables away from land disposal. Recycling shall be incorporated in the Project design by reserving sp¢ce appropriated for the support of recycling, including the provision of ~ adequate storage areas and access for recycling vehicles. (Addendum, p. 191J 4.8.6.2. All future refuse collection cantracts serving the Project site shall include the collection of recyclables. (Addendum, p. 192) Since the Project includes mitigation measures to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal, the ProjecYs contribution to cumulative solid wastes is not considered significant. (Ibid.) 2. Phase la Impacts Within the expectations of an annual generation of 3,900 tons established in the Certified EIR, Phase la generated approximately 1,267.8 annual tons of solid waste or 0.02 percent ofthe excess capacity at the Puente Hills landfill. Phase la incorporated storage and coll~ction recyclables into the Project design and included the collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts serving the Project site, as specified in the mitigation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR regarding the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR reduced solid waste impacts to a less than significant level. Thus, solid waste impacts of Phase 1 a were within the envelope of impacts and analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) City of Arcadia Westfield San[e Anita February 2007~ Page 52 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings 3. Phase lb Impacts Construction of Phase lb would require the export of approximately 159,352 cubic yazds of soil. Additionally, construction of Phase lb would generate construction debris such as wood, metal, concrete, and other materials. Materials not used or recycled at the site would likely be disposed of at the County's unclassified landfills. Since unclassified landfills in the County do not generally have capacity issues, inert landfills serving the site would have sufficient capacity to accommodate disposal needs during project construction. (Ibid.) Within the expectations of an annual generation of 3,900 tons established in the Certified EIR, Phase ]b would generate 524J tons of solid waste per year or less than 0.01 percent of the excess capacity at Puente Hills Landfill. Phase lb would also be designed to incorporate storage and collection recyclables and include the collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts serving the site pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EII2 regarding the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR would reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill. Furthermore, the Puente Hills MRF began operation in 2005, thus increasing solid waste disposal capacity within the County. Thus, with incorporation of the mitigation measures, solid waste impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Overall, solid waste impacts of phase lb would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 193- 194% 4. Impacts of Phase 2 Development of Phase 2 would generate approximately 997.6 tons of solid waste per year or OA16 percent of the excess capacity at Puente Hills landfill. Phase 2 would be designed to incorporate storage and collection recyclables and include the collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts serving the site pursuant to the mitigation measures identified in the Findings for the Certified EIR regarding the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill. Thus, consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, solid waste impacts associated with Phase 2 would be ]ess than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures. Overall; solid waste impacts of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 194) 5. Cumulative Impacts Cumu]ative growth associated with related projects would increase the demand for solid waste disposal capacity at landfills. Related projects, in conjunction with the Project would generate an estimated 19,952 tons of waste per yeaz and would contribute to an increased demand for disposal capacity. This demand for solid waste would represent less than LS percent of the solid waste disposal in Los Angeles County. In addition, cumulative projects would be subject to City ot Arcad February 2007 Wcstfield San[e Page 53 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings discretionary review on a project-by-project basis and would be required to implement measures to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal. Furthermore, the additional capacity anticipated with the operation of the Puente Hills MRF as well as anticipated waste by rail facilities underway would further accommodate disposal needs associated with future growth. Thus, significant cumulative solid waste disposal impacts would not be expected due to related projects identified in conjunction with the Project. (Addendum, pp. 194-196) 6. Addendum Findings Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen solid waste impacts. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts regarding solid waste would be reduced to less than signiScant ]evels with implementation of the mitigation measures. Thus, solid waste impacts of Phase ]b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EII2. (Addendum, p. 197) Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen solid waste impacts. With incorporation of the miYigation measures, Phase 2's impacts regarding solid waste would also be reduced to less than significant levels and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) I. Environmental Effects Found Not to Be Signiticant „ i Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral Resources 1. Project Impacts in the Certi6ed EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation is required since there are no existing agricultural resources and fannlands in the City. In addition, the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agc~icultural uses. (Addendum, pp. 199-200J With regard to biological resources, the Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that are no unique or sensirive animals located on the Project site and therefore these resources would not be affected by implementation of the Project. In addition, the Project will not•affect preservation policies, conservation plans, or protected habitats. Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources will occur from implementation of the Project and no mitigation is required. (Addendum, p. 200j The Findings for the Certified EIR conclude that the Project site is not on the Historical Places Listing in the City's General Plan, nor is it within a designated historic district. 2007 Anite Page 54 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings The Project-related improvements would not cause a physical change that would affect the unique ethnic cultural values of the area. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources aze anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) The Findings for the Certified EIR conclude that the Project site is not designated as, or located near, any known regionally significant mineral resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to mineral resources aze anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) 2. Impacts of Phase 1 a Phase la was developed entirely within an urbanized site wherein agricultural resources, cultural resources and mineral resources are not known to exist. As such, Phase la did not have impacts on these resources. Additionally, trees that were removed during Phase 1 a were replaced with additional ]andscaping. Thus, any potential impacts on biological resources were less than significant. (Addendum, p. lO1J 3. Impacts of Phase lb As with Phase la, Phase lb is proposed to be developed entirely within the urbanized site, within which no agricultural resources or mineral resources are known to exist. Therefore, development of Phase ]b would have no impacts on any of these resowces. Additionally, trees that would be removed during Phase lb would be replaced with improved landscaping. In addition, as part of removal of existing trees during Phase lb, the Applicant would comply with the relevant requirements of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Thus, any potential impacts on biological resources would be less than siguficant. In addition, any archeoloa cal resources that might be uncovered during construction activities would be treated in accordance with state regulations. With regard to impacts to cultural resources, as discussed above, there is no historic district or structures contributing to an historic district within the Project site. Additionally, the proposed Phase lb improvements would not physically affect the Santa Anita Park Historic District within the racetrack mall development project area to the north and east. Furthermore, based on the location of Phase lb within the Westfield site, existing shopping center buildings would be ]ocated between the Phase lb improvements arid the Racetrack property, so that development of Phase lb within the Westfield site would not affect viewsheds of historic structures within the Santa Anita Pazk Historic District. Overall, implications of Phase Ib associated with the agricultural, biological, cultured, and mineral resources would be consistent with the findings of the Initial Study for the Project studied in the Certifed EIR. (Ibid.) Cirv of Arcadia w'estfield Senta Anita Febiuary 2007 Page 55 Statement of Environmenta] Effects and Findings 4. Impacts of Phase 2 Phase 2 would be developed entirely within the urbanized site. As discussed above, the site is ]ocated in azea within which no agricultural resources, cultural resources or mineral resources are known to exist. Thus, development of Phase 2 would have no impacts on any of these resources. Additionally, trees that would be removed to provide for Phase 2 would be replaced with improved landscaping, and tree removal would comply with tl~e relevant requirements of the MBTA. Thus, any potential impacts on biological resources would be less than significant. Overall, implications of Phase 2 associated with the agricultural, biological, cultured, and mineral resources would be consistent with the findings of the Initial Study for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 201-202) 5. Cumulative Impacts With regazd to cumulative impacts, the site and immediate surrounding area is fully developed with urban uses that have been previously graded and paved. Related projectsin the project vicinity, including the racetrack mall development project, would also be developed within an environment that has been previously subject to development. Therefore, significant cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources, cultural resources, biological resources, and mineral resources would not be expected as a result of development of the related projects identified in conjunction with the Phase la and Phase lb improvements. The Westfield Santa Ariita site does not contain any historic resources and thus would not have any impact on any historic resources. Therefore, Phase lb and Phase 2 would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to such an impact. (.9ddendum, p. 203) 6. Addendum Findings As with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, impacts related to agicultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, or mineral resources would be less than significant. Therefore, implications of Phase lb associated with agricultural, biological, cultural, and mineral resources would be consistent with the findings of the Initial Study for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. Phase lb implications with respect to these issues would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) Hazards 1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that none of the existing or proposed land uses associated with the Project would generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials in quantities that could pose public health hazards. No storage of explosive or combustible of Arcadia aarv 2007 Page 56 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findin~s materials is located on-site and there aze no lrnown natural or any other hazards known to exist on the Project site. Therefore, the hazardous materials impact to the public and/or envirorunent is not considered significant and no mitigation is required. (Addendum, p. 203) 2. Impacts of Phase la Phase 1 a did not develop uses that generate, use or dispose of hazardous materials which could pose public health hazards. In addition, Phase 1 a does not include the storage of explosive or combustible materials. Therefore, Phase la impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are less than significant. (Addendum, pp• 203-204) 3. Impacts of Phase lb Phase lb would not develop uses that generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials which could pose public health hazards, nor would Phase lb include the storage of explosive or combustible materials. Therefore, Phase lh impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be ]ess than significant. (Addendum, p. 204) ~ 4. Impacts of Phase 2 Development of Phase 2 would complete the Project studied in the Certified EII2 and would be comprised of the same types of uses as Phase la and Phase lb. Thus, none of the land uses associated with Phase 2 would generate, use or dispose of hazardous materials in quantities which could pose public health hazards, nor store explosive or combustible materials on-site. No other natural or man-made hazard exists on-site. Therefore, impacts of Phase 2 related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Overall, hazards and hazardous materials implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the Project in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) 5. Cumulative Impacts Related projects constructed in the vicinity, whose proposed uses would generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials, would be required to comply with appropriate regulations and manufacturers' instructions. Thus, the cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to be less than significant. (Ibid.) 6. Addendum Findings Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts of Phase lb with regard to hazards and hazazdous materials would be less than sia ificant. Thus, hazards and hazardous Citv of Arcadia ~ ~ w'estfield Santa Anita February 2007 , Page 57 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findin;s materials implications would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Project studied in the Certified EIFZ. (Ibid.) Hydrology/Water Quality 1. Project Impacts in t6e Certified EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the amount of impervious surfaces would not increase with implementation of the Project and, therefore, no significanT impacts on water quality, groundwater discharge, drainage pattem, or long-term run-off are anticipated. The Project site is not located within a 100-yeaz floodplain. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Storm Wafer PolluYion Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Control Plan in accordance with the Clean Water Act. Therefore, no significant hydrology impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Addendum, p. 208) 2. Impacts of Phase la With the Phase la improvements, the amount of impervious surfaces within Westfield Santa Anita did not increase. As part of development of Phase 1 a, the following conditions set forth in the staffreport for azohitectural design review (ADR-2002-061) were satisfied: • Submit grading and drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Provide calculations for both the gravity dr~inage system and the pump drainage system (if applicable). Computations shouId show hydrology, hydraulics, elevations and all the details required on the City's "Pump Drainage" sheet. • Suhmit separate erosion control plan prepared by registered civil engineer for City's approval. Development of Phase 1 a also occurred in accordance with the NPDES requirements including prepazation of a SWPPP and Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). No substantial changes to existing drainage pattems, groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff quantities or velocities, or degradation of water quality occurred as part of Phase la. As such, Phase la impacts to hydrology and surface water quality were less than significanf and were within the envelope of impacts set forth in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 208-209) , ' Ci[v of Arcadia H'estfield Santa Anita February 2007 _ ' Paga 58 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings 3. Impacts of Phase lb Phase lb would be developed on an existing surface parking area. The Phase lb expansion of Westfield Santa Anita would not affect the overall drainage patterns or increase the existing amount of storm water runoff since the area proposed for development is 95 percent impervious and the proposed expansion would not change the amount of impervious area. Drainage from this area would continue to flow to an existing undereround storm drain system. As such, no substantial changes associated with existing drainage pattems, interference with groundwater recharge, or increases in stormwater runoff quantities or velocities would occur. Thus, hydrology impacts associated with Phase Ib would be less than si~nificant. (Addendum, pp. 209-210) As part of construction and operation of Phase lb, the Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP and a SUSMP in accordance with current NPDES requirements and to comply with the requirements set forth by the City of Arcadia. These include implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). With compliance with NPDES and City requirements, impacts associated with waYer quality would be less than significant and would be within the envelope of environmenta] impacts set forth in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) 4. Impacts of P6ase 2 While the specific development footprint of the buildout of Phase 2 set forth in the Certified EIR has not been defined, the hydrologic and water quality conditions afrer buildout of Phase 2 would remain lazgely the same as existing and post Phase ]b conditions since the site is almost entirely covered by impervious surfaces with limited landscaping, and all surface flow drainage would essentially remain the same. Thus, development of Phase 2 would not result in substantial changes associated with existing drainage patterns, ~roundwater recharge, or increases in stormwater runoff quantities or velocities. In addition, as part of construction and operation of buildout of Phase 2, the Applicant would be required to prepaze and implement a SWPPP and a SUSMP in accordance with current NPDES requirements and to comply with the requirements set forth by the City of Arcadia. As a result, hydrology and water quality impacts of buildout of Phase 2 would be less than signiFicant and would be within the envelope of environmental impacts set forth in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 210J 5. Cumulative Impacts Each of the related projects could potentially result in an increase in surface water runoff and contribute point and non-point source pollutants to surface water resources, resulting in a cumulative impact to hydrology and water quality. However, the related projects would be subject to NPDES permit requirements for both construction and operation, including February 2007 Westfield Sanla Aoita Page 59 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings development of SWPPPs, and SUSMPs, as well as compliance with local requirements pertaining to hydrology and surface water quality. Thus, each related project would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate BMPs and trearinent measures to avoid significant impacts to hydrology and surface water quality. Thus, with compliance with regulatory requirernents, cumulative impacts related to hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. (Addendum, pp. 210-211J 6. Addendum Findings With compliance with reeulatory requirements, Phase lb and the buildout of Phase 2 would not result in new or substantially worsen impacts related to hydrology and surface'water quality. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts related to hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. Thus, hydrology and surface water quality impacts of Phase lb and the buildout of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts set forth in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIl2. (Addendum, p. 211) Population and Housing/Recreation 1. Project Impacts in the Certi6ed EIR The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the Project would not imolve any residential development and therefore will not have any direct impact on regional or local population projections. The Project will generate approximately 780 additional full-time jobs and 780 part-time jobs, which may indirectly increase the need for housing. However, the majority of the jobs are expected to be filled by the existing population. In addition, the Project will not destroy structures that are considered affordable housing and therefore will have no impact on affordable housing units in the City, nor will the Project displace substantial numbers of people. Therefore, no significant impacts to population and housing are anticipated and no mitigation is required. .(Addendum, p. 212) With regard to recreation, the Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the Project does not contain any components that would increase demand upon neighborhood, regional or any other recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. .(Addendum, pp. 212-213). 2. Impacts of Phase la Residential uses were not removed or proposed as part of the Phase 1 a improvements. Thus, no impacts associated with direct residential population growth or displacement of housing occurred as part of the Phase la improvements. Approximately 750 part-time and full-time employees were generated by Phase la, or 84 more emp]oyees than projected by the Certified February 2007 Santa Ani[a Page 60 Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings EIR. This employment growth is also within the employment projections set forth by SCAG for the City of Arcadia. In addition, it is expected that the majority of the additional employment opportunities have been filled by persons who already live within close proximity to the site. Thus, no impacts associated with population or housing occurred as part of the Phase la improvements. (Addendum, p. 213) Phase la is commercial in nature and thus would not generate population growth that would be expected to substantially increase the demand for public recreational facilities. Therefore, significant impacts related to recreation are not expected with Phase la. (Ibid.) ~ 3. Impacts of Phase lb Residential uses would not be removed or proposed as part of the Phase lb improvements. Thus, no impacts associated with direct residential population growth or displacement of housing would occur as part of the Phase lb improvements. Phase lb is projected to employ approximately 150 full-time and 150 part-time employees which is within the employment projections set forth by SCAG for the City of Arcadia. In addition, it is expected that the majority of the additional employment opportunities would be fil3ed by persons who already live within close proximity to the site. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of such new employees on local population and housing would be less than significant. (Addendum, pp. 213-214) As with Phase la, Phase Ib would be commercial in nature and would not be expected to substantially increase the demand for public recreational facilities. Therefore, significant impacts related-to recreation would not occur as a result of implementation of Phase lb. (Addendum, p. 21 a) 4. Impacts of Phase 2 Phase 2 would be expected to generate as many as 298 full-time and 298 part-time new jobs, which would be within the employment projections set forth by SCAG for the City of Arcadia. In addition, it is expected that the majority of the addirional employment opportunities would be filled by persons who already live witlun close proximity to the Project site. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of such new employees on local population and housing would be less than significant. (Ibid.) As a commercial retail land use, Phase 2 would not be expected to result in a substantial increase in the demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, impacts on recreation services in the City of Arcadia would be less than significant. /Ibid.). CiN of Arcadia . K'esriield Santa Ani[a February 2007 Page 61 Statement of Environmenta] Effects and Findiags 5. Cumulative Impacts As indicated above, the estimated employment increases resulting from Phase 1 a, Phase Ib and buildout of Phase 2 would be within the employment growth forecasts set forth by SCAG for the City of Arcadia. These forecasts account for planned or reasonably foreseeable development within each jurisdiction. Thus, as the employment growth from the Project is within these forecasts, cumulative impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. (Ibid.J Other related projects in the vicinity that are commercial in nature would not be expected to have a substantial adverse affect on the demand for public recreation facilities. In addition, new residential projects within the City would be required to pay fees into the Park and Recreational Facilities Fund in compliance with Section 2695.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In addition, neither Phase la, Phase Ib, nor Phase 2 would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts on pazks and recreational facilities in the area. (Addendum. p. 215) 6. Addendum Findings Phase Ib and Phase 2 would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts related to population and housing or recreation. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts related to population and housing as well as recreation would be less than significant. Thus, population and housing implications as well as recreation implications of Phase Ib together with Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed far the Project in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR. (Ibid.) III. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS. 1. The City of Arcadia, acting through its City Council and its Depar[ment of Development Services, is the "Lead Agency" for the Project evaluated in the Addendum. The City finds that the Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum to the Certified EIR and that the Addendum reflects its independent judgment. 2. The City Council finds and determines that the information contained in the Addendum and staff errata for the Project is adequate for matters related to the Architectural Design Review, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City CEQA Guidelines along with other factors reIated to this matter. 3. The City Council finds and determines that, based on the information set forth,in the Addendum and Findings, pursuant to Sections 15162(a)(1) and (2) of the State CEQA City of Arcadia Wes[field San[a Anita February 2007 Page 62 ORDINP~NCE N0. 2135 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TE~ CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9269.5 RELATING TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS AND ADDING SECTION 9220.25.3 TO TI~ ARCADIA MLTI~IICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A DEFP.~ITION FOR GROSS LEASABLE AREA, TEXT AMENDMENT T.A. 99-006 WI~REAS, this text amendment was initiated by Westfield Corporation, Ina (the "applicant") requesting to amend Section 9269.5 relating to the parking requirements for Regional Shopping Centers, and to add a new definition to the Arcadia Municipal Code foi "Gross Leasable Area", and to delete the floor area for kiosks and carts from the parking requirements, Community Development Division Case No. T.A. 99-006; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2Q00, a public hearing 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, the Planning Commission on August 8, 2000 voted 4 to 0 with one (1) member absent to adopt Resolution No. 1616 expressing the Commission's comments and recommendations to the City CouncIl regarding Text Amendment 99-006; and 1 WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing on: (1) the final Environmental Impact Report; (2) General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, (3) Zone Change Z-99-003 and (4) Text Amendment 99-006 for the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Deparhnent to the City Council; 2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing regarding_ the General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, Zone Change Z-99-003 and Text Amendment 99-006 for the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion; and 3. All letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing on September 5, 2000, including the staff report, the Final EIR and all oral presentations and documentation presented at the public hearing; and WI-~REAS, the above recitals az•e hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, 'I`I~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORI~]IA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l. The factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the FEIR are appropriate; that with the exception of "Air Quality", this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. 2. That the project as proposed including f.he mitigation measures, Final EIR (hereby incorporated by this reference) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will comply with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan; and that the City Council concurs with the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant effects under provision of California Pubiic Resources Code Section 21081 and California Code of Re~ulations Sections 1~091 and 1~093 as set forth in Resolution 6151. SECTION 3. Section 9220.25.3 is added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: 3 "9220.25.3. GROSS LEASABLE AREA. Gross leasable area shall be the toial floor area designed for the tenant's occupancy and exclusive use, including basemenfs, mezzanines, or upper floors - expressed in square feet and measured from the centerline of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. Gross leasable area shall also include kiosks within the common areas. It is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales areas. Exception: Gross Leasable Area shall not include (a) service areas within mall tenant stores and (b) service areas that occupy less than 25% of the gross square footage of stores in excess of ~0,000 square feet. Service areas in excess of this percentage shall be counted toward the Gross Leasable Area. Service areas are those areas specifically dedicated to employee use, storage and mechanical areas and employee restrooms." Section 4. That Section 9269.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: "Regional Shopping Centers 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of Gross Leasable Area (GLA)° 4 Sect_ ~_n 5. The City Clerk shall certif~~ to the adoption of this Ordinance and sha11 cause a copy of ~e same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this 3rd ATTEST: ~ ~~~ ~• ~~~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: C'/,~-~^ ~' ~~-e~~ Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney day of ~~tobez , 2000. , /sl C'iARY A. ~C~~IA~~ _._. . _ _-----.`_' Mayor of the City of Arcadia 5 ORDINANCE N0. 2136 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO RECONFIGURE THE C-2 & D(GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND DESIGN OVERLAY AND C-2 & D H8 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH A DESIGN AND HIGH-RISE OVERLAY) ZONING BOUNDARIES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE (COMMONLY KNONlN AS THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA) TO INCORPORATE THE NEW BUILDING ENVELOPES WHICH INCLUDE THE ENCLOSED AND OPEN AIR MALL AREAS WHEREAS, this zone change was initiated by Westfeld Corooration, Inc. (the "applicanY') requesting that the zoning designation of G2 & D(general commercial and design overfay) and C-2 & D H8 (general commercial with a design and high-rise overlay) be reconfigured to incorporate the new building envelopes (Building Areas A, B and C) which include the enclesed and open-air rnall areas as shown on the attached site plan (Exhibit A) and legally described in Exhibit B, to allow the construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion of the existing mall, Community Development Division Case No. Z-99-003, for the property located at 400 South Baldwin Avenue, the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive (commonly known as the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita); and WHEREAS, on July 25, a public hearing 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, the Planning Commission on August 8, 2000 voted 4 to 0 wifh one memb=r absent to adopt Resolution 1614 expressing the Commission's comments and r~commendafions to the City Council regarding Zone Change Z-99-003; and WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Councii held a public hearing on: (1) the final Environmental Impact Report; (2) General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, (3) Zone Change Z-99-003 and (4) Text Amendment 99-006 for the Wes~eid Shoppingtown - Santa A~ita expansion; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: -1- 2136 Y 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department to the City Council; 2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing regarding the General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, Zone Change Z-99-003 and Text Amendment 99-006 for the Wes~eld Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion; and 3. All letters, information and ma'terial presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing on September 5, 2000, including.the staff report, the Final EIR and all oral presentations and documentation presented at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the at;ached report is true and correct. Section 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the request to expand the C-2 & D and C-2 D& H8 overlay zoning designations will be consistent with Building Areas A, B and C and the Height Restriction Area as shown on Exhibit A and legally described in Exhibit B. 2. That the approval of this zone change will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvemen'ts in such zone or vicinity. 3. That the Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review and approve the specific site plan for the mall expansion during separate public hearing processes that will allow fhe City an opportunity to better assess the location, design and potential impacts of the proposed buildings on properties to the south and west of the project site subject to required and appropriate findings. 4. That the evaluations of the environmentai impacts as set forth in the FEIR are appropriate; that with the exception of "Air Quaiity", this project wiil not have a significant effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on wiidlife resources or the habitat upon which the wiidlife depends. -2- 2136 r 5. That the project as proposed including the mitigation measures, Final EIR (nereby incorporated by this reference) and the Mi'tigation Monitoring and Reportina Program will comply with the objectives and policies set forth in the G2neral Plan; and that the City Council concurs with the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant effects under provision of California Pubfic Resources Code Section 21081 and Califocnia Gode of Regulations Sections 15091 and 15093 as set forth in Resolution 6151. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves this zone change reconfiguring the G2 & D(design) and G2 & D H8 (design and hlgn-rise overlay) overiay zones as shown on Exhibit A and legally described in Exhibit B; provided that the H8 overlay shail be applicable solely to Building Area C, but excluding therefrom the Height Restriction Area as shown on Exhibit A and legally described in Exhibit B. Section 4. That from and after the effective date of this Ordinance, said real properties shall be so zoned subject to the restrictions imposed by Resolution 61 99 adopted concurrently herewith under the provisions of the zoning regulations of the City. Section 5. The City Clerk shail cerfify to the adoption of this Ordinance .and shall cause a copy of the same to be pubiished in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this ~rd day of October , 2000. t, lO/~Gf~ltB aa-II1~vlh~:~iiYJ-. ...__ _. .. .. . ~. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: /~6 J Do ~A~F ~ City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: .. c~~ f", ~ ~-(N(.~'~+~. Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney -3- 2136 r STATE OF CAL,IFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JL7NE D, ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of'.4rcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Ordinance No, 2136 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2000 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Chano; Marshall, Segal and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None -- _._....__ _--_- ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia 4 , EXHIBIT A > WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SANTA ANITA BUILDING ENVELOPE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS BUILDING AREA C THOSE PORTIONS Or PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELcS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261, PAGES 90 TO 95 OF MAPS, IN THE OF~ICE OF TH~ COUNTY RECORDcR OF SAID COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 2 AN~ 3 dF PARCEL MAP NO. 6374 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN 800K 89, PAGES 76 AND 77 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHcRLY T~RMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 23862, HAVING ABEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 10°53'47" EAST 98.73 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°30'27" EAST 191.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 38°02'00" EAST 350.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51'SB'00" WEST 188.81 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11 °05'07" EAST 547.45 ^EET; THENCE SOUTH 78°54'S3" EAST 177.00 FE=T; THENCE NORTH 29°00'09" EAST 534.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78°34'00 EAST 652.54 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51°58'00" EAST 77.60 F=ET; THENCE SOUTH 78°34'00" EAST 104.85 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 350.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90°DO'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 549.78 FcET; THENCE SOUTH '11'26'~7" WEST 1,179.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°42'09" WEST 798.20 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36°02'00" WEST 72.40 FcET; THENCE SOUTH 88°30'DO" UVEST 224.64 FEcT; THENCE NORTH 51 °58'00" ~ST 503.39 F~=T TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING., SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 50.038 ACRES BUILDING AREA A: _... ___._. __ - _ ___ . _ ___ THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 IN THc CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261, PAGES 90 TO 95 OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRI3ED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE SOUTH 07°49'48" EAST 33.44 FEET TO THE TRUE ?OINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 51°58'00" EAST 236.11 rEEf; THENCESOUTH 31 °42'S4" EAST 66.36 r~ET; THENCE SOUTH 34°13'06" ~ST 126.28 FE~T; THcNCE NORTH 51 °58'00" WEST 300.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°13'O6" EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. ~ SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.016 ACRES. PAGE'f OF 2 EXHIBIT B Page 1 BUILDING AREA B: THA i PORTION OF ?ARC~L 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261, PAGES 90 TO 95 OF MAPS, IN THE OrFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS =OLLOWS: ~ BEGINNING AT THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE SOUTH 07°49'48" EAST 33.44 F_=T TO THE TRUE °OINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTH 51°58'00" =P,ST 150.33 FEET; THENCE 30UTH 34°13'O6" WEST 300.00 FEEF; THENCE NORTH 51 °58'00" WEST 146.64 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 956.14 FEET, A RADIAL LINE FROM SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 60°51'30" : AST; THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4°23'46" AN ARC LENGTH OF 73.36 FEET; THENCE TANGEN7 TO SAID CURVE NORI'H 34°13'06" EAST 227.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINN ING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.03D ACRES HEIGHT RESTRICTION AREA: (THAT PORTION OF BUILDING AREA C NOT SUBJECT TO THE H8 OVERLAI~ THOSE PORTIONS OF PARCELS 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIF~RNIA, AS ?ER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261 , PAGES 90 TO 95 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TOGETHER WITH THA7 PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF ?ARCEL MAP NO. 6374 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELcS, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 89, PAGES 76 AND 77 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS A WHOL~ AS rOLLOWS: BEGINNING ATTHE NORTHERLYT=RMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARC=L 1 OF SAID PARC=L MAP NO. 23862, HP.VING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 10°53'47" EAST 98.73 =E~T; THENCE NORTH E2°30'27" EAST 191.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51 °58'00" EAST 503.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°30'00" :AS7 224.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 38°02'00" EAST 72.40 FcET TO THE TRUE POINT OF B~GINNING; TH=NCE NORTH 9°22'12" EAST 58.92 FE~T; THENCE SOUTH 88°08'00" EAST 8D7.36 FEET; THcNCE SOUTH 11 °26'07" WEST 163.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°42'D9" WEST 798.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 2.~40 ACRES WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SANTA ANITA LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PAGE 2 OF 2 EXHIBIT B Page 2 ~ -~~ C o ~ O C ~ Q W r~~~n z~ Q O ~ - J Q ~o ~ N I ~ L^~ ~ W 1 i~ ~ ~~~ rr / w n \ l.L O ~ ~ ~ W CO _ ~ ~ Q ~ z~ O p~ ~ Q o ~ ~ ~ ~~ o z a ~ ~ ~~ ~ Cn CL f'- z z ~ a~ o ~ ~ z ~~ c~o~ o~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ m o~~ Z~QO~ 2 `^ v~ ~ Q(7U I I Z~N~N r^ v• p~n;~,~ u 0 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ EXHIBIT B PAGE 3 irn Z;r i: i ~ ¢w oz Z ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ Q O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ f'- z Q C~ ~ Cn ~ ~-- z z W 0- z °; J ~ o ~ J ~ ~ C.,~3 ~/''~ V 1 . ~ E ~ yn ~ ~, ~ ~ wl ~~1e~~ "~ '8z `"4~ 9z e ~ ,~ ,, "~£' S ~ ~ i~ ,7ah „~~b ^ P a~v o ~ ,.~ ~~,. PG. m ~/ ~ .G/ ~ h g~0 ~/~ ~ h ~ ( n 1' F ! \ ~ ~xF \ \ ~? QJ V I O~. 9~£~~S~ ~~b ~ h4 S`''vjb \ so~ ~Z> ~ ~"j' ~ ~ `J oF~ !F ~ , 9oF, ~I//O>/ ~ \ S~ ~.~£ ?~ ~d'6 . z' ~F~F~ N o°. N ;,~~°` y~ Q~' ~ ~ ~ z `z `'~ w Z m ~ z ~ ~ o ~ F- ~ ~ ~v l_ O ~ ~.~j ^7 ~O . O G ~ ~,, ;~ i- w rn n c vj ~ ~ II II II ~o~ sV ~ r C J a LJ~~ ~~a a°~o N ~ ~ r ~ - x ~ ~ c ~N~~ n - O U~ ~' ~ O 4' ~ ° ~ Q ° II O N ~ ~ ^ a~~oo Z~,°iNo a c~ ~ i ; ~ ~~ ~ z~~;N U i- ~ O ~ ~ ~ C~ m w ' ~ nzi--~j p`Djo~ EXHIBIT B PAGE 4 RESOLUTION N0. 51~7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TnE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 1MPA.CT RE?ORT PREPARED FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN EXPANSION PROJECT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO i HE CALIFORNiA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVE2RIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPOR i ING PROGRP,M WHEREAS, the V~lestiield Shoppingtown Expar.sion Proiect propcses construciion ot up to a 600,000 square feot expansion to the existing Wes;iield Shcpolnptown in tne City of Ar~adia; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Caiifomia Environmental Quaiity Act ("CEQA") (Fublic Res. Code §21000 et seq.); the State CE~A Guidelines (14 CCR g 15000 e? seq.), and the City of Arcadia's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency `or the Wesifield Shoppingtown Expansion Project ("ProjecY') zs the puolic agency with general covemmen:al powers, and WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EiR") snouid be prepared pursuant to CcQA in order to anaiyze all poiential adverse environmental impacts of Project imolementation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Pr~paration of the Draft EIR was published on or aboui December 17; i 999, inviting comments from responsible agenciss; oth°r regulatory agencies, organizations 2nd individuals pursuant to Staie CEQA Guidelines Section i 5082: and WHEREAS, in order to define the scooe or the investigation of the EIR, the City consulted with all responsible and trusiee siate agencies, local organizations and interested individuals to identi"ry concems regarding potential impacts of the Project on the Project site; and WHERE.0.S, during the 45-day comment period on ihe Noiice of Preparation or an EIR, the City conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on December 6, 1999 to solicit input from the community regarding issues to be addressed in the ~IR; and . WHEREAS; approximaiely 13 written comment letters were received by the City ln reseonse to ine Notice of Preparation, wnich assisted the City in narrowing the issues and altemaiives ror analysis in the Draft E!R; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for pubtic review on May 19, 2000 and the City initiated the pubiic comment oeriod by fiiing a Notice of Compleiion and Availabiliry with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Clerk's Office of Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public R~sources Code Section 21092, the Ciiy also orovided a Notice of Completion and Avaiiabifity to all organizations and individuals wno had previously requested such notice in writing, and published the Notice of Compietion on or about May 25 and June 1 in a newspaper of general circulation In the Projeci area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to approximately 53 puolic agencies, crganizations 2nd individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of tP~e Draft EIR at the ,4rcadia City Library and Arcadia Development Services Depariment, Communiiy Develcpment Division; and 'JVHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and reauested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulaiory Gcencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, dunng the official public review period fcr the Draft E1R, the City received aporoximately eleven (11 j writtan comments, all of wnich the City responded to in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code S~ction 210G2.~, the Ciry provided copies of the Final EIR to all commertors on August 23; and WHEREAS, as contained 'nerein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and. WHEREAS, ail the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local Guidelires have been satisfied by the City, and ±he EIR is suriicientiy detaiied so that ali or the potentially signifcant environmen,at effects of the Project have been evaiuated properiy, iocusing on brcad policy alternatives and area wide mitigation measures; and , _Z_ 0197 WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connec'tion with the Project sumcientfy analyzes beth the feasible mitioa"tion measures necessary to avcid or substantially lessen the ProjecYs potential envirenmental impacts and a range of feasibie altematives capable of eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance witn CEQA and the 5tate CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based uqon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolutior; and WHEREAS, environmental impacis iden~iried in the Firal EIR wnich the City finds are less than significant and do not require mifigation are described in Sec:ion 11 hereor; ar~d WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final ~IR as potentially significant but which the City fnds can be mitigated to a I~vel of less tnan significant througn the impositicn of feasible mitigation measures identiTied in the Final CIR ard set forth herein, are described in Section Iil hereof; and WHEREAS, environmenial impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially sianificant but which the City finds cannot be fully mftlgated to a level of iess than significant, despiie the imposition of aii feasible mitigation meesures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 1V hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that migh! eiiminate or redu~e significant envircnmental impac*.s are described in Section V hereof: and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the iniormation and data in the administrative record, induding the Fnal EIR, and all oraf and written evldence presented to it during all meeiings and hearngs; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adeouate `or purposes of making decisior,s on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in any public nearing or any addiiional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new inrormation requiring _3_ 6197 , recirculation or additional 2nvironmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Seciion 15088.5; and WHE~EAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adopiion of this Resofution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE GITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. At a~egular meeting on September 5, 2000, the Ciiy Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, Including the Final EIR; written and oral festimony given at meetings and hearings, and su6mission of testimony from the public, orcanizations and regulat~ry agencies, the following environmentat impac!s associated with ±he West~ield Shoppingtown Expansion Projec: are: 1) less than signifcant and do not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insigniTicance through the identified mitigation measures; or 3) significant and wili be substaniially lessened to the exient feasible by the identified mitigation measures. Section 2. Reso(ution regarding environmental impacts not requiring mitigation. The City Council hereby finds that the foilowing poteniial environmental impacis or the P,ncakia Residential Development Project are less than significant and t~erefore do not require the imposition or mitigation measures: A. Aesthetics - Liah~ and Glare Lighting associated with the proposed restaurant pads adjacent to Baldwin Avenue may be visible by adjacent residents. fDraft EIR, p. 4-15.) However, existing landscaping and elevation differentials will screen this lightina. In addition, existing vehicular tranic and street lignting on Baldwin Avenue will mask any addi"tional lighting. No spi;lover of parking loi lighting is anticipated. Therefore, potential light and glare impacts are not considerod signincant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) B. Aesthetics - Toooaraqhv The ~xisting tooography is relatively flat due to previous grading activities necessary to construc~ the existing mall. (Draf~ EIR, p. 4-8.) As a r2sult, no significant , -4- 6197 grading is expected to be necessary to construct the Project Therefore, no significant impacts to the exisiing topograpny are anticipated and no mitication is reauired. C. Aaricultural Resour~es ~ The Project site and surrounding area are fuily developed with urban uses. There are no existing agricultural resources and farmlands in the City. The Projec't site h~s been and will continue to be developed as a shopping center and adjoining ~arking lot. In addition, ~he Proiect will not conriict witn axisting zoning ~or agricultural usas. (Draft EIR, p. 9-1.) Therefore, the Project will not result In signifcant impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation is required. D. Bioloaical Resources No unique or sensiiive animals are Iocated on the Project site and ther2TOre will not be affected by imolementation of the Project. On-site vegetation consists primarily of small ornamental trees (`hroughout ihe parking lots) and landscaping ma~erials. In addi"tion, the Project will not afrect preservation policies, conservation olans, or protected habltats. (lbid.) Therefore; no significant impacts tc biological resources wiil occur ~rom implemertation of the Project and no mitigation is requir~d. ~. Cultural F.~sourc°s The Project site Is not on the Historical Places Listing in the Clty's General Plan. nor is it within a designated historic distric. The Project-related improvements wiil not ~ause a physical change that would afiect the unique ethnic cultural values of the area. Therefore, no signiricant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. flbid.) F. Hazares and Hazardous Materials None of the existing or proposed land us2s associated with the Project will generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials in auan'tities that could pos2 public heaith hazards. No storage of explesive or combustible materials is locaied on-site and tr~ere are no known natural or any other hazards known to exist on the Proiect site. Th~refore, the hazardous materials Impact to the pubiic andior environmeni is net consider~d signi~icant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) ~_ "0197 . G. Hvdroloqy and Water Qualitv , ThF amount ot impervious suraces will not increase with impl2mentaiion of the Project and, therefore, no signifcant impac:s on water quaiity, groundwater discharge, drainage pattem, or long-term run-off are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 9-2.j The Project site is no't located within a 1G0-year floodpiain. In addition, the Proiect Applicant will be required to prepar~ and Implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Waier Qualiiy Control Plan in accordance with the Clean Water Ac:. Tnereiore, no significant hydrology impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is reauired. (Ibid.) H. Mirerai Resources TF~2 Project site is not designated as, or located near, any kncwn regionally significant mineral rasources. Tnerefore, no signincant impacis to mineral resources are anticipated and no miiiqation is required. (Ibid.) I. Pooulation and Housina Imolementation of the Project will nat Involve any resident;al development and theraTOre will not have any direct impact on reaional or locai populaiion projec~ions. (Ibid.) Tne Projeci wili aenerate aporoximately 780 additional full-time jobs and 780 part-time jobs, wni~h may irdirectly increase the need for housing. However, the majoriiy of the iobs ar~ ~xpected to be filied by the existing population. llbid.) In additicn, the Proiect will not destroy structures that are considered arordable housing ard therefore will have no impact on affordable housing units in the City, nor wiil the Project displace substantial numbers of people. Tnerefore, no significant imoacts to population and housing are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) J. Recreation The Project does not contain 2ny components thai would increas~ dernand upon neighborhood, regional or any other recr~aiional facilities. Therefore, no signincant imoacts to recreational resources are anticipated and no mitigation is r~quired. (loid.) K. Utilities/Service Svstems - Natural G2s Service The Southern California Gas Company ("SCG"j currently provides natural eas servic2 to the Project sita via underground lines located In West Huntingion Drive , _g_ 0197 and Baidwin Avenue. fDraft EIR, p. 4-136.j SCG has indicaied that exisiing mains can serve the Proiect and wouid not create a signincant impact on the environment. (Ibid.) fr addiiion. no cumulative impacis to gas services from the Proiect are anticipated at this time. (Draft EIR, p. 4-137.) Thererore, no significant impacts to natural gas service ~re anticipated from the Project and no miiigation is reouired. (Ibid.) L. UtilitieslService Svstems - Teleohone Service Pacific Beil has existing telephone ~acilities within the Project vicinity and provides telephone services 'to the mall shoos cur~ ently operating on the site. (Ibid.) To provide service to the Project, enhancement and/or extensions of existing facilities may be required. (Ibid.) How°ver, service ±o the Project can be provided without any adverse imoact on Pacifc Bell's ability to orovide telephone service In 'the ar2a. (Drart EIR, p. 4-'I38.) In addiiion, Pacific Befl witl be abfe to accommodate the needs ~or tzlephone service generated by this and other projects in the area. (Ibid.) Therefore, no sigrificant Impacts to telephor~e servicas are anticipated and no mitigation measures are r~quired. (Ibid.) Although no miiigaticn is reauired, the following miiigation measure will be implemented te ennance the delivery or telepnone service to ±he Project site. 4.E.3.1. The Project Applicant shall cocrdinate with Pacinc Bell prior to the Issuance of aradino permits regarding the need for additional facilities and/or easements. (Ibid.) Section 3. Resolution regarding -nvironmental Impacts mitigated to a leve! of 1=ss than significan!. Tne City Councii hereby nnds that mitigation measures have been iden~ined in the Draft EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the foliowing potentialiy signiiicant environmental imoacts to a less .than signincant level. The potentially signifcant impacts and the mitigation me2sures which will reduce them to a less than signifcant level are as foliows: A. Aesthetics 1. Potential Sianiiicant Impac:s. The Project may have potentially signiricant impacts regarding aesthe'tics because current zoning would allow the Project to have a maximum oT eight , _7_ 6197 stories with a builaing height not to exce=d 85 feet. (Dreft ~IR, p. 4-8.) Ir~ contr2st, the existing mall.is two stories, with the excep'tion of the Macy's and Robinson's-May buildings. The Proieci may aiso have potential significant impacts to aesthetics through limiiing the existing views of the historic Santa Anita R2cztrac;c grandst2nds. (Drai~ EIR, p. 4-7.) 7he area of grea'test concern would be views of the Project site from tne existing multiple `amily r~sidenc=s located along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntineton Drive. lDraft EiR, p. 4-9.) The unmiiigated building heignt could be as much as 80 feet above Baldwin Avenue. !Ibid.) The only other area of potential impa~t is the Eastside ExGansion Area on the ~astem portion or the site, where the Project may disrupt partial views ef :he racetrack grandstands for a distance cf approximately o50 feet along West Huntington Drive, and full views for an additional 650 feei. (Draft CIR, p. 4-15.) 2. Findinas. Implemeniation of the following miiigaticn measures will reduce poteritial impacts to aesthetics to less than significant: 4.1.3.1. All site pians and architectural buiiding elevaiions shall be submitted to the City or Arcadia ior review and approval by the Planring Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's Architectural Design Review Process. (Ibid.l 4.1.3.2. The Develooment ServicES Department shell review and approve the Project's landscape plans, prior to issuance of buiiding permiis. (Draft EIR, p. 4-17.) 4.1.3.3. Tne parking structure!s) shall be arcnite~turally compatible wiin the rnall architecture. (Ibid.) 4.1.3.4. The proposed restaurant pads located along Baldwin Avenue shall be limited to :wo (2) stories with a maximum height or 30 `aet. (Ibid.) 3. Supportina Explanation. Impi2mentation or the Proiect will not require the alteration of =xisting landforms nor will it substantially alter the existing viewsheds and visual character of the sii= from the surrounding 2reas. (Draft EIR, p. 5-5.) The existing commercial uses and proposed expar,sion are considered visually compatibie (i.2., both commercial in nature) with the existing Santa Aniia Rac=track located directly north and , _g_ 6197 e~st of the si'te. (Draft EIR, p. 4-9.; In addi'tion, the Proiect will not visually impact the horse stables that are located directly nor~h of the site, nor wili It impact the large ~arking area e2st of the siie; since the parking area is not ~onsldered visually sensitive. (Ibid.) Regarding proposed buiiding height, the above mitlgation measures wiil r~duca the maximum buiiding he~ght of the restaurant pads to two (2) stories, 30 feet maximum height. (Ibid.) Also, e!evation difrerentials and the existing landsc2ping aiong Baldwin Avenue and the reduc2d building height would mitigate any potentially slanificant aesthetic impacts. (Ibid.) In addition, views of the existing Nordstrom building are blocked by the 2xisting berm and associated.landscaping wi~ich ranges beiween six and eight fest along Baldwin Avenue. Alsq the pad elevation is approximately 20 feet below Baldwin Avenue, which provides addi:ional screening. (Ibid.) Further, the 'pulk and height of the existing mall ls partially buffered by ihe distance irom the residences to the mall structures. Large arierial roadways separaie West~ield Shoppingtown from adjacent multi-family residerc°s along Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.) Also, no scenic vistas are currently blccked by the mall. (Ibld.) In addiiion, as s~ated in Section If of th°se findings; no signlficant impacts are expected regarding light and glare or the topograohy of the Project site. Regarding potential cumulative impacts from the Proiect, there are no other proposed development proiects which could combine to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area. As a result, cumulative aesthetic impacts are not considered signiiicant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.) With the existing landscaping and imolementation or the above listed miiigation measures, any potentially signifcant imoacts to aesthetics will be reduced to fess than signlficant. B. Geoloqv and Soils ;. Potential Sianificant 4moacis. The Project could expose people and property to ground shaking hazards `rom local and regional faults if a large earthquake occurred on any of ~he active faults identified as hazardous to 'the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 4-41.) The most notable regional faults include the San Andreas Fault io the north and tne Whittier 9_ 6197 r fault to the south. flbid.) Also; the Raymond Hill ~aults zone ~ransvers2s the City from west to e2st. The nearoy Sierra Madre Fault alsc influences the topograpny of the area. (Ibid.} P.ecent acfivity aiong the Sierra Madre ;ault sys'tem (e.g., 1971 San ~ernando and 1992 Sierra Madre earthquakes) Indicates this fault system is active ard Is the source of potentially damaging earthquakes that could impact Arcadia and the Westfield Shoppingtown Mall. (Draft EIR, p. 4-38.) 2. Findinas. Implementation of the Tollowing mitigation measures will reduce poiential geotechnical impac;s to less than significant: 4.3.3.1. All grading operations wili be conducted in conformance ~Nith the applicable Ciiy of Arcadia Grading Ordirance and the most recent version or the Uniform Building Code (for seismic criteria). (Draft EIR, p. 4-44.) 4.3.3.2. The grading and fcundation plans, including foundaticn loads, shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer. The findings and recommendations of the Sols Engineer shall be compiled in a geotechnical reqort and submitied to the City of Arcadia for review and approvai prior to issuance of grading permits. (Ibid.) 3. Suopor;inc =xolanation. Although earthquakes in the past 25 years have produced significant ground motion within the Project planning area, the damage occurring as a result of these earthquakes has not been as widespread in Arcadia as it has been in other areas. (Draft EIR, p. 4-~2.) In addition, although moderate to high intensities of seismic groundshaking can be expected to occur on-site, the effects can be mitigated by conforrnance with the latest llniform Building code andlor recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of Galifomia ror seismically resis'tive design oi structur~s. Tne~efore, no significant impacts related to regional seismicity are anticipated. ,Drart EIR, p. ~-43.) ~ Additionally, no landslides are present on or near the site of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 438.) A!so, there are currently no prablems relating to runot and =rosion since the Project site is fully developed and will romain covered in either 2sphalt or building materiais. (Draft EIR, p. 4-41.) Similarly, because the Project site is s -10- 6197 already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil wouid be minimal during the ccnstruction pnase or the Proiect. (Ibid.) in addition, on-site soils are already comoac~ed and covered 'oy pavemeni and there is no evidence to suggest that the soils are not suitable for development. (Draft EIR, p. 4-43.) Also, due to past grading activities Tor the existing mall, the site is r~latively flat and no impac:s relating to gross siope stability are anticicated. (Ibid.) Further, the Gounty's liquefaction hazares maps do not show the Proiect site as potentially liquiiiable. (Draft ElR, p. 4-44.) Although the ailuvial deposits undemeath the Project site may be subject to difrerential settlemen? durir~g any intense seismic shaking, such sertlement is not anticipated to occur to t~ ~e degree necessary to cause much damage. flbid.) In addition, cumulative geotechnical impacts wil! be raduced io ~ess than significant as cumulative projects adhere to mitigation measures contained in site- specific geotechnical reports, building codes, and grading ordinances. Therefore, cumulative geotechnical impac!s related to the Proieci are not considered significant. (Ibid.) With the implementation ot the above listed mitigation measures, any potential geotechnical impacis from the Projec: will '~e reduced to less than significani. il bid.i C. Land Use/P!anninq 1. Poteniial Sianificant Imcac:s. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses; Project implementation may increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels on roadw2ys including Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-5o.) Another potential irnoact rnay be the proposed General Plan Amendment to allow expansion of the buiiding envelope to the site's eastem border. Under a worst-c2se sc~nario, this could allow the construction of structures within approximateiy 350 feet of the nearest resideniial units. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) The Project includes a General Plan amendment to allow for a 600,000 square foot expansion oi the existing mall; resuiting in an incre2se of 2°3,5°9 sauare feet over the existing General Plan. (Draft _1R, p. 4-52.) ThereTOre, the proposed General Pian amendment exceeds the growth projections for commercial land uses in the City of Arc2dia by approximately 3.8 percant. (Ibid.) As a result or the , -~ ~- a~s7 Increased square footage, the Project ex~eeds the level of development assumed in the adooted Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP"). (Draft EIR, p. 4-54.) Further, the ~~Ies2 oroximity of futuro restaurant pads to exisiing residentiai neighborhoods may create controversy and compatibility impacts relative to noise and aesthetics. (Draft EIR, o. 4-50.) Although the northerly and southerly r~staurant pads are separated Rom :he existing residential uni:s by approximately 340 feei and 170 feet, adiacent residenis may percei~re an increase in niahttime illumiration, traffic, noise, and irtcreased activity. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) In addition, the propesed nortneriy restaurant oad may noi oe compatible ~aith the Santa Anita Racetrack because of the restaurant pad's ~lo~e proximity to the existing stables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) The stables have the potential to oroduce various odors that may impact the preposed commercial uses. (Ibid.) 2. Findina. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce pctentiai impacts to land use and planning to less than signiticant: 4.4.3.1. The Project s"ail be designed in ac~ordance wiih all relevant development standards and regulatiors set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, City Council Ordinance 1425 and Resolution 4185, as amended. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.) 3. Suooortina ExQlanation. Since the proposed expansion is consistent with the existing commercial uses at the Project site, no potential land ~se impacts are associaied witn :he Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) In addition, since the existing uses and the proposed expansion consist of an enclosed mall, no significant land use impacts relaied to the existing parking area are anticioated. (Ibid.} Further, although the stables have poten"tial to produce various odors that may potentially impact the proposed northerly restaurant oad, the restaurant Is likely to be enclosed and will limit potent;al odor related impacts. (Ibid.) As explained in these findings, Project-related traffc and noise impacts have been mitigated to a lev~l of insigniticance. In addition, the projected tra~c volumes are well within the roadway classifi^ations identified in the City's Circulation Element. (Draft EIR, p. 4-50.) Therefore, the Proiect is considered environmentally . -12- °~°~ compatible with the surrounding 'and uses. (Ibid.) Further. 'he Santa Anita Racetrack is not considered a sensitive land use and will not be significantly imoacted by the Prcject. (fbid.) Regarding potential impacts to ~xisting resicences firom :he prooosed commercial uses, an existing six- :o eigh+?oot lancscaped berm along Baldwin Avenue will reduce any potential land use compatibility impacts. As a result no significant impacts are anticiaated. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) Regarding the potential "worst-case" scenario of construction within 3~0 feet of exisfing residences at the site's eastem border, these units are separa'ted rrom the propcsed expansion area by West Huntington Drive, an eiaht-lare divided highway witn a landscaped median. (Ibid.) P,s a r=sult, it is unlikely that adjac~nt residenis will perceive any increases in noise, light and glar~, or on-site activity. Therer'ore, no land :.~se compatibility impacts are aniicipated. (Ibid.j The Project is consistent with all the elements of the General Plan, with the exception of the Air Quaiity Eiement. (Draft ~IR, pp. 4-51 threugn 4-56.) Air quailiy Imoacts are further dlsc~ssed m these flndings. The Projec~ is also cerslst~nt witn most of th= policies or the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") a~cpted by the 5outhem Califomia P.ssociaiion cf Govemments ("SCP,G"). fDraft EiR, p. 4-09.) Further, the Project fully complies with or mee*.s the intent of the majority of SCAGs ancillargladvisory policies and is consistent with SCAGs employmen't forecasts for the C~+.y cf Arcadia (Ibid.) Therefore, ne signifcant impacts are anticipated. llbid.) In addition, the Project, along with related proiec:s in the surrounding area, has already been anticipated and is included in the Arcadia G~neral Plan. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project site is ~onsicered approprate for the prooosed axpansion due io the commercial nature of `~he surrounding area to the north and east. ll~_id.j In addition, none of the cumuiaiive projects would require the disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an existing community. As such, cumulative ~and use impacts are not considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.) With the implementation or the above mitigation measure, 2ny poteniial impacts to land use andror planning will be reduced to less than significant. -13- 6197 i D. Noise 1. Potential SigniTicant Impacts. Construction noise may be intermittently audible to nearby residences, especially toward the southwesiam site comer. (Draft EfR, p. 4-80.j Construction activities may create a shor~-t2rm noise nuisance for impact sources such es iacknammers or pavement breakers. (ibid.) V~hicular noise from trarfc on adjacent arterial roadways could increase the noise 2xposure of residents or other noise- sensi~ive users along site access roads. (Ibid.) 2. Findines. With implementation of fhe following mitigation measure; noise imoacts wiil be r~duced to Iess than signiTicant: 4.5.3.1 Constructien aciivifies are prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. fDrait EIR, p. 4-87.) Corstruction is prchibited on Sundays and holidays, unless authoriz~d by the Suiiding OfficaL (Ibid.) 3. Supoorinc Explanatian. With implementation of ±he above mitigation measure; construction noise wiil be confined io the daytime hours of lesser noise sensitiviiy by construction permit conditions. (Draft EIR, p. 4-80.) Demolition and new construction noise wiil be large!y masked by existing tra~c noise and blocked by much of the exisiing buildings, such that temporary construction activity impacts, even during m~imum noise aeneration, would be less tnan significant. (Ibid.) Off-site traffc noise will only be increased by 0.4 decibels, which is undetectable by humans. (Draft EIR, p. 4-87.) Consequently, traffic associated with the shopping center expansion wili not perceptibly change the noise environment. (Ibid.) Therefore, with implementation of the mitigaiion measure above, noise impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.) The maximum cumulative noise increase as a result of the Proiect is less than 3.0 decibels, which is nct perceptible by humars. ;Ibid.) Therefore, cumulative noise increases are not considered significant. (Ibid.) ' -~4~- O~J~ E. Public Services F1RE PftOTECTION 1. Potential Siqnificant imoacts. The Prciect expansion of up to 600;000 sGuare fe~t would 'increase demand on the Arcadia Fire Department for fire service resources. (Draft ~1R, p. 4-89.) There would be an incrFase in the number of responses to the Project area that wouid increase the demand for existing apparatus, equlpment and personneL (fbid.) As sucn, the Ciiy's costs would increase to maintain equipment and apparatus, as wel~ as to train and equip oersonnel. (1bid.) The Project may increase tne demand for paramecic s~rvices due to increased human aciivity at the si'te. (Ibid.) The increasad demand may require new or altered ambulance services. (Ibid.) Implementation of this Project in combination with other projects in the viciniiy may result in a cumula'tive increase In fire department cal!s for service. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) 2. Findinas. Wth implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to fire protection services will be reducad to less than significan't: 4.6.1.1. The Proiect Appiicant shall comply with all applicabie City of Arcadia codes, ordinances, and siandard conditicns regarding fre areventicn and suppression measures, relating to water improvement plans; fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire flows, fire access; access gates, cornbustible construction, water availability, fire sprinkler system, etc. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) 3. Suooortina Ex~lanation. Paramedic response times aRd service are curr~ntly within the standards in the Proiect area and would remain so with implementation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-89.), Compliance with fire protection design standares will ensure that future development within the area does not inhibit the ability of iire protection or paramedic crews to resoond at optimum levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90). The need for additio~al personnel and materials will be r2viewed periodicaliy as cumulative d2velopment occurs. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.} Implementaiion of the mitigation measure listed above wili assist the City in meeting cumulative prowth-driven demands ror fire r _~5_ 0197 orotection services and will offse't any significant cumulative Impacts refated to this Praiect. flbid.; POLICE PROTECTION 1. Potential 5ianificant Impacts. The Arcadia Police Depariment has indicated that po(icing of the parking structure may presant unique difriculties with regard to personal safety and the safety of vehicles and property. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91.) The Proiect rnay use appreximately 12 percent of the Arcadia Police Department resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4- 92.) it is Iikely that the deparfment may require the additlon of some nersonnel as a result of the Projec~. (Ibid.) 2. Findinas. With implementation of the following mitigation measures; impacts to police protection servic~s will be reduced to less than signifcant: 4.6.21. The parking structure(s) snail be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the str~..~cture. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) 4.62.2. A security plan shali be submitted to and aporoved by :he Arcadi2 Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any structures, including the parking structure(s). (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-7.) 3, 5uo~ortina Explanation. Potential concems with regard to security or the parking structure will be mitigated through the design concept of the structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91.) The Police Department will evaluate the security plan to determine the best methods to address and mitigate potential security issues. (Ibid.) ~urther, the Police Department will review final design plans once they are submitted. (Draft EiR, p. 4-92.) The miiigation measures listed above will reduce ail potential Project-related police impac:s to a levei of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) To the exient that police department resources are expanded in an efficient manner in accordance with growth trends, no signiTicant cumulative impacts related to police orotection services are anticipated. (lbid.) s -is- sis~ F. Trans~or~ation/Circulation 1. Potential Sianiticant Imoacts. The Project is expecYed tc generate approximateiy 16,080 additional vehicle trips per day. (Draft EIR, p. 4-101.) At build-out, the Proiect may generate 608 outbound trips ar~d 766 inbound trips during the P.M. peak hour. (Ibid.) The Proiect rnay have a neaative impact on the levels of service for the following int~rsectiors in 2002: . Foothill Boulevard @ Balawin Avenue . 1-2C EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue . Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard. (Draft EIR, p. 4- 106.) Due ?o the contribution of growih in regional traftic and General Plan build-out, the Project may have a negative impact on the levels or service for th° ~ollowina inierssctions in 2015: . Foothill Boulevard @ Bzidwin Avenue . 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue . Qriveway A @ Baldwin Avenue . Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue . Huntington Drive @ Baldwir .Avenue . Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue . Huntington Drive @ Sur,set Avenue . Huntingfon Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard . Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place. . Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street • Santa Clara Street @ Santa Ani"ta Avenue. (Oraft EIR, p. 4- 117.) In addition, cumulative development i~ accordance with the adopted Arcadia General Plan and regioral trarfic growth may result in d°nciencies to the leve!s o` service for the following intersections by 2015: . Focthill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenua (V~, (E) . 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue , -17- 6197 . Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue • Driveway B @ Baldwin Avenue . Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue . Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue . Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue . Huniington Drive @ Sunset Avenue . Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard . Huniington Drive @ Colorado Place . Huntington Drive @ Holfy Avenue . Huniington Drive @ Santa Clara Street . Huntington Drive @ Santa Anita Avenue . Huntingion Drive @ I-210 WB Ramps . Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue . 1-210 EB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue . 1-210 WB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue (Draft EIR, p. 4- 124 tc 4-125.j 2. Findin s. With implementafion of the followi~g mitigation mezsures, trafflc and circula'tion impacts will be reduced to iess than significant: 4.7.3.1. In order to mi!igate the tra~c problems, there are two means by whicn traffic mitigations may be paid: a. The project applicant shall particioate in area-wide trafFc improvements by participating in the City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program, ii adopted by the City of Arcadia. The project applicant shall be entitled to credit against this Fee Program for the cas*.s of projec;-funded off-site circulation improvements, to the extent that such improvements provide circulation capaciiy in excess of the capacity required to serve traffic generafed by the project; or b. If the City of Arcadia has not adopted a Traffic Impacf Fee Program by the time building permits are issued for the Project, ihe Project shall participate in the area-wide tra~c improvements identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan, as adopted, on a pro-rata "fair-share" basis (i.e., "nexus° forrnula). A ~ -18- s19i nexus based formuta will ensure ,hat the Projec~ fully compensates ror its share of the cost of improvements to roadways within or near the study area that may be impacted by the Project. A nexus study to determine 'fair-snare" responsibility shaU be comoleted by ~he Project Applicant at the time engineering plans are ini"tiated for the roadway improvement. F, nexus based formula will ensure that the Project rully compensa'tes Tor its share of the cost of `nevJ' capacity that must be provided at various locations. (Ibld.) 4.7.32. The Proiect Applicant shall be required to cornple±e or bond for the cost of engineering and construction ror the following improvements prior to issuance or" Building Permits within Phase 1(up to 400;G00 square feet GLA). ). if an improvement is identined in the City's adopted Transporfation Master Plan, the City may require that the applicant provide the City with the cost of said improvementfs) rather than construct the improvement(s). The funding provided shail be used to construct ihe improvement identified in the Transportation Master Plan. Tne Project-sp~cifc improvements are as follows: a. Foothill Boulevard na Baldwin Avenue (W) Add a separate lefi-~um lane on the rorthbound approach. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-°.) b. '-210 ES Ramos na Baldwin Avenue Restripe eastbound approach for a separate left-turn land, a through-right land and an exclusive right-turn lane. (Draft EIR, p. 4-130.) c. Huntina'ton Drive (a~ Rcsemead Boulevard Provide a separate rignt-turn lane on northbound and eastbound apprcach by restriping and modify the trafric signals to accommodate the new right-tum lanes, it necessary. Detaiied striping and signal olans shali be prepared and submiited to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works ror review and approval. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.) [NOTE: Tne consultant's Mitigation Monitoring Program dated July 2000 deieted two mitica'tion me2sures. See pg. 1-^9 of Draft EIR, mitigation measures "d" and "e "] , •19- 6197 4.7.3.3. The Project Applicant shall '~e required to carnplete or bond ior the cost of engineering and constructian for the following improvements prior to Issuanca of Certificate of Occupancy within Phase 2(up to 600,000 square feet GLA). If an improv=ment Included in the following list conflicts with an improv=ment identined in the City's adopted T~ ansportaiion fvtaster Plan, the Ciiy may require that the Appiicant provide the City with the cost of the conflicting improvement rather than construct the imqrovement. The funding provided shall be us2d to construct the improvement ideniified in the Transportation Master Plan. The Projeci-specific improvements are as follows: a. Drivewav A Cc~r Baldwin Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approacli. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.) o Drivewav C(a~ Baldwin Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approacn. (Draft EIR, p. 4-130.) ~. Huntinccon Drive na Baldwin Avenue Add a second northbound left-turn lane and also add a separate right-tum lane on the eastbound approach. (Draft EIR, p. 4-131.) d. DuaRe Road (~a Baldwin Avenue Add a right-turn and a second left-turn lane on the northbound approach and a righi-furn lane on the westbound appraach. (Ibid.) e. Huntinqton Drive (a) Sunset Boulevard Add a separate left-tum lane on the southbound approacn. (Ibid.) [NOTE: The consultant's Mitigation Monitoring Program dated July 2000 deleted one mitiga'tion measure. See pg. 1- 21 of Draft EfR, mitigation measur2 "k."] f. Huntinaton Drive (c~ Colorado Place r -20- "0197 Restripe westbound approach for an exclusiv~ right-turn, one shared thrcugh/right and two through lanes. (Ibid.) g. Huniinaton Drive (c~ Santa Clara Stre=+, Restripe northbound approach to proviae ~or two right-turn lanes, one through lane and a left-turn lane. (lbid.l h. Sarta Clara Street Ca~ Santa Aniia Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane cn the northcound approach. (Ibid.) i. Huntinaton Drive (cJ Hollv Avenue Add a second southbound right-turn lane. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-12.) 4.7.3.5. The Proiect Applicant's final design for any new ~,ntemal circulaiion alterationslcnanges regarding the intemal circulation system shall comply with the ~ollowing design guidelires to the satisfaction of the City Trafric Engineec a. The intemal dreulation system shall consist of a ring road, a system of perimeter roads, appropriately Iaid out parking aisles, landscaping and intersecticns and incorporaie appropriate pedestrian ana bicycie access~connecuuns. (Ibid.) b. Primary circulation snall be provided by the ring road. The site circulation system shall be designed to encourage use or the ring road and discourage use or the perimeter raadways for movement irom one part of the site to anotner. Horizontal curvature and sight ~istances shall be designed for at least 30 miles per hour (mpn). Curve radu and signt distance requirements for the ring road shall be the same as for the major collector roads. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132). c. Or-site vehicular volumes and speeds shall be controlled by the physical design of the parking lots and the perimeter ~ -21- 6197 roadway in order to reduce tne potential and number o~ serous pedestrian-vehicular confiicts. The maximum width of the perimeter roads shall not exceed 29 reet, and the minimum inside radii shali be between 30 and 50 reet. All perimeter roads shall be designed as fire lanes so that no- stopping/no-parking ruies can be enforced. !Ibid.) d. Landscaping shall be used for deiineation of on-siie circulation features and to discourage drivers from traversing designated areas. {Ibid.) e. Tee (three-way) intersections shall be used ror all on-site intersections in order to minimize conflicts and simplify maneuver areas. The iniersections shall be designed to the same geometric standards as the intersectlons of comparable classes oi public streets. (ibid.) . f. Adequate site distances shall be provided at ail on-siie interseciions and on horizontal curves. Minimum speeds for signt distance determination shall be 20 mph on parking aisles and p~rimeter roads, and 30 mph on the ring rcad. (Ibid.) 3. Supportino Explanation. With implementation of the Project-specifc roadway improvements identified above, eacn of the above intersections will operate at background leve!s of service (as if, without the Project) or better in 2002 and 2015. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132.) The intersection of Huniington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard is currently operating at an unacceptable level or service and will continue to do so ~Niih or without the Proiect. (ibid.) All other intersectior,s in the 2002 condition will operate at acceptable levels cf service with Project-specinc improvements. (Ibid.) Tnerer'ore, Proiec~-specific impacts ~ave been mitigated to a levei of insignincanc2. (Ibid.) E~cept for Huntington Drive and Resemead Boulevard, cumulaiive intersection impacts can be mi'tigated to a less than signincant level through Project- specific intersection improvements. (Drait EIR, p. 4-133.) fntersection deficiencies at : -22- 6197 Huniingtor~ Drive and Resemead Boulevard are due to cumulaiive o2ckaround growth and not the Project. 11bid.) Tne conditions at this intersection wouid essentially be the same wi'th or without the Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, the Froject's contribution tc the signincant cumulative traffic impacts are "de minimis" anc thus not significant. (loid.} G. Utiiities/Service SVStems ELECTRIC SERVICE 1. Potential SianRicant imoacts. Southe;n Califomia Edison Company ("SCE"), who wilf provide eiectricity for the °roject, estimates ±hai an additional four-megavolt arnps of load may be required to serve the Project. fDraft EIR, p. 4-134.) To accommodate the Project some rearrangement of SCE facilities may be r=quired. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135. ) During construciion, SCc anticipates conflicts beiween ~xisfing =lecirical facilities and new construction on the site. (Ibid.) Temporary power requiremen:s for the Project are expecied to be e~densive. (Ibid.) 2. Findinas. Wth implementation or the following mitigation measure, irnpacis to electric service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.1.1. Tne Project Applicant shall coordinate with SCE prior to ths issuance of grading permits io addr=ss potential conflicts between existing electricai faciliiies and new construciion on the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135.) 3. Suqooriina Exolanation. To reduce the ProjecYs elec;rical consumption, the Preject wiil comply with all the State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Arcadia cod~s. (Dratt EIR, o. 4-134.) SCE has indicated its ability ±o serve the Project. .(Draft EIR, p. 4-135.) Coordinaiion with SCE eariy in the planning process to address patential conflicts will ensure a safe work environment and reliable service for SCE's existing customers. (Ibid.) Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will further reduce any identified impacts on electrical s2rvice to a level of insignifcance. (Ibid.) , -23- 9197 WATER SERVICE i. Pctential Sianir"icant Imoacts. The Westfield 5hoppingiown is s2rved by Zone 2 of the Arcadia Wzier System. (Draft EIR, p. 4-138.) The propcsed expansion may Increase demand on the water sta age zone, which is currently deficient by .25 million gailons. fDraft EIR; p, 4-139.) Leaking 2xisting detector check valves are likeiy to be iound in the rarnodeling process and may need to be resolved. (Ibid.) 2. Findinas. With implementation o` the following mitigaticn measures, impacts to water service will be reduced to less than signifcant: 4,g,4.1, The Project Applicant shall comply with water ~onservation measures in accordance with AB 325. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.) 4.8.4.2. The project applicant shall comply with the Title 17 - Backflow Regulaiicr,s. 4.8.4.3. The project apolicant shall repface or repair deiector check valves if leading is found. 3. Suooortina Ex~lanation. The City's Water Master Plan includes a new storage reservoir to be corstructed in the next two to three y~ars, which will accommodate curren~ and future storage deficiencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.) The area water distribution system will provide adeouate flow to the Project structures. (Ibid.) Further, ac~ording to the Arcadia Public Works Services DePartment; the Project is not expected to have a signifcant impact on the City's ability to provide quality water service to the Projeci and the community. (Ibid.) Therefore, implementation oi the mitigation measures iisted above will reduce all potential w~ter impac!s to a level of insigniiicance. (Draft EIR, p. ~-140.) Further, with regard to cumulative impacts, Arcadia does not anticipate any problems supplying water service to any current or future development in the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) ~ _Zq_ 6197 SEWER SERVICE 1. Pot~ntial Sianificant imnacts. The County Sanita'tion Dis'tricts oi Los Angeies County ("CSDLAC"1 provides ;egional sewer and wastewaier treaiment services for the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 4-140.) The wastewater rlow originaiing from the Projecf sif2 wiil discharge to a local sewer fine maintained by the City, for conveyance to the CSDLACs sys~em. (Draft EtR, p. 4-141.) The expected increase in average wastewater f~ow from tne Project siie is 195,000 gallons per day ("gpd"). (Ibid.) The general plan amendment assocated with the Project proooses an increase of 293,599 sauare feet above what is allowed under the existing Generai Plan. (Ibid.) ThereTOre, the Generai Plar Amendment may increase wasfewater generation by approximately 95,452 gpd {0.1 million gallons per day [°mgd"]} over wnat is currently allowed under the General Plan. (Ibid.) 2. Findin s. Wth imolementation of the following mitigation measure, irnpacts to sewer service wiil be reduced to less than signifcant: 4.8.6.1. The Project Applicant shail pay all required sewer connection rees to CSDLAC prior to issuance of a sewer connection permit. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) 3. Suqportina Explanation. CSDLACs Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer has an excess available capaci"ty of 2.0 mgd and is able to adequately serve the 0.1 mgd increase generated by the Proiect. (Draft EIR, p. 4-141.) As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) Implementation of the mifigation measure above will reduce al! potential waste~Nater impac:s to a Ievel of insignificance. (Draft EIR, o. 4-142.) Presuming future development is generally consistent with existing general pians, CSDLliD aoes not anticipate problems in supplying cumulative w2stewater service to any current and future development in the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) Furiher, the proposed mall expansion is intended to serve planned population growth within the , -25- 6197 region and wiil not result in any direct population increase. (ibid.l Therefore, no slgnificant ::umulative impacts to wastewat2r services are aniicipated. (Ibid.j SOLID WASTE D~SPOSAL 1. Potential Sianificant Imoacts. Waste disposal services will be provided by .CSDLAC and waste will be disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfilf. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) Development of the Proiect may increas2 the service demand on solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and further impact the Puente Hills Landfill and the City's soiid waste reduction and diverslon programs. (Draft EIR, p. 4-143.) The Project is expected to generaie approximately 3,900 tons of solid waste per year, a five percent increase within the City. lDraft EiR, p 4-144.) With regard to cumulative impacts, the County of Los Angeles is facing serious disposal constraints in terms of daily c~pacity and long term disposal capacity, such that °very eft"ort must be made to minimiz° the amount of waste generated. (ibid.) 2. Findinas. With implementation of the iollowing mitiaation measures, impzcts to sewer service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.6.1 All subsequent site plans and building pians on the Proiect site shall incorporate storage and collection recyclables into the Project design. AIf occupants shall be required to recycle, at a minimum, newspaper, glass bottles, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and P.E.T. bottles to divert recyclables away from land disposal. Recycling shali be inc~rporated in the Project design by reserving space appropriated for the support of recycling, including the provision of adequate storage areas and access for recycfing vehicles. (Draft _iR, p. 4-144.) 4.8.6.2. All future reruse collection contracts serving the P~oject si"te shall inciude the col4ection of recyclabfes. (Draft E4R, p. 4-145.) 3. Suoporfinq Exqlanation. In accordance with CSDLAC recommendations, the Project will incorporate storage and collection of recyclables into the Project design. (Drart EIR, p. ?-?44.) Also, occupants will be er~couraged to recycfe, and future refuse collection . -26- s~s7 contrac:s will indude the colleciion of recydables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144, 4-145.) Therefore, implementation of the mitigaticn measures aoove will reduce all poten"tial solid waste impacts to a lev?I of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-145.) Since the Project includes significant mezsures to r2duce the amount of waste requiring iandfiil disposal, the ProjecYs contribution to cumulative solid wastes is not considered significani. (Draft EIR. p. 4-1?4.) Section 4. Resolution regardirg environmental impac'ts not fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. A. Air Qualitv 1. Potential Sianificznt Impacts. The Project may nave potential signiTicant impacts to air quality through construction activity, regionaf mobile source impacts, microscale air quaiity Impacts, and odors resulting from the site's proximity to the racetrack horse bams. Construriion Activiiv Imqacts: During construction, downwind receptors may be exposed to diesel exhaust particulates, which are an identified human carcinogen. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Health risk assessments of construction equipment diesel exnaust have demonstrated that there may be an elevated individual cancer risk in very close Project proximity. (Ibid.) Although this health risk to the surrounding public is not considered sig~ifcant, it is sufficiently adverse as to highly recommend all feasible minimization of diesel exhaust. (Ibid.) In addition, the age oi existing structures proposed for renovafion or demolition indicates that there may be smali amounts of asbestos-containing materials ("ACMs") in roofing or flooring. (lbid.} Also, new construction typicaUy utilizes paints, stains and ofher surace treatmenis that emit volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") when applied. (Ibid.} Application of more than 37.5 gallons of such paint per day mignt cause significance thresholds to be exceeded. ~Ibid.) Reaionaf Mobile Source Imoacts: The greatest Project-related air quality concern comes from the mobile source emissions that may be generated from Project site commercial activities. (Ibid.) The Project traffic consultant estimates 16,079 "new" weekday vehicle trips may be generated at full site development. (ibid.) On Saturdays, the net trips may increase to 20,000. (Draft EIR, p. 4-3Q.) Implementation , •2~- s1s7 of the Project may add aoproximately 120,000 we=kday vehicle miles trav=led ("VMT") to the exis±ing regional VMT burden of around 300 million VMT per day. (Ibid.) In addition, Projec't operational emissions were calculated using a computerized model tor buildout in 2002. From this model, the major automoti~e exhaust pollutants from Prcjecf-related operational emissions are projected to be well above the threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis~rict ("SCAQMD") for both ~he Project and for related growth. (lbid.) Ac:ording to the SCAQMD, emission levels above the recommended threshoid are considered to have an individually and cumulatively signiiicant impac:. (Ibid.) Microscale Air Qualitv Imoacts: A microscale carbon monoxide ("CQ") impact screening analysis was used to estimate sensitive receptor air poiiution exposure at a number of intersections near the Project area. (Draft EIR, p. 4-3'.) This analysis showed a possible existing violation of the hourly CO standard at Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard during the evening peak hour. (Draft cIR, p. 4-32.) Odors Resultinq from Site ProximitV to Racetrack Horse Barns: Odors are a potentiaf air quality issue forthe Proiect sife because of the presence or'the nearby horse barns from the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) At night, odor potential increases because the wind direction reverses, wind speeds decrease, and low-level trapping inversions become established after dark. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) The odor potentiai across the Project site reaches a maximum very late at night. (Ibid.) 2. Findinqs. Imolementation of the following mitigation measures wifl reduce potential impacts to air quality to the extent feasible: 4.2.3.1. The Project shall include suppression measures for fuaitive dust and those associated with construction equipment in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 4G3 and other AQMD requirements. Prior to the issuance of grading permits tF~e Project Applicant s~all submit a fugitive dust control plan to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The fugitive dust control plan shall require the corstruction contracior to implement measures which may include, but no"t be limited to, the following: ' -28- 6197 a. Using adequate water for dust control (preferably using reclaimed water). (Draft EIR, p. 4-35.) b. Operating street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjaceni ro2dways to remove dirt dropoed by construction vehicles or dried mud carried oifi by trucks moving dirt or brir~ging ccnstruction materials. (lbid.) c. Covering trucks or wetting down loads ef any dirt hauled to or ~rom the Froject site. (ibid.) d. Periorming low-NOX emissions tune-ups on on-site equipment operating on-site for more than 60 days. (Ibid.) e. Requiring on-site contractors to operate a congestion relief program including: . Rideshare incentiv~s ror construction personnel. . Lane closures limited to non-peak tra~c hours. . Receipt or construction materials scheduled for non-peak traific periods where possible. (Ibid.) 4.2.32. The Proiect Applicant shall encouraae future visitors of the Project to utilize alternative forms or transqortation througn incorporation of the following measures: a. Provide preTerential parking spaces for empfoyee carpocis and van pools. (lbid.) b. Provide on-sife bus shelters as determined necessary by the Development Services Director and provide a well-lighied, safe path to the mall entrances. The design of the new shelters shall be compatible with the design of the mall and snail be subject to the review ana approvai or. ~nc Development Services Dir~ctor. (Ibid.) c. Work with the City of Arcadia to imofement a public outreach program that promotes alternative methods of transportation through information kiosks located in the mall. (Ibid.) j -Z9- 6197 3. Suoportinq Explanation. Air quality impacts during constructlon were snown to be welf below sanificant 'hreshold leveis. (Draft EfR, p. 4-34.) Potential construction dust soiling impacts will be confined mainfy to cars parked near individuaf construction siies, but not to any nearby homes or cther dust-sensitive uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4-28.) 1n addifion.. daily equipmeni exhaust will be below SCAQMD thresholds and air quaiity standards will not be exceeded during construction because of the limited total volume or emissions and the mobility of the emission sources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-28 and 4-29.) In addition, the individual cancer risk from diesel exhaust wiil not be signifcart. Because the large surrounding parking lot creates a substantial disturbznce buf'er and because of the direction of daytime winds, the diesel ~xhaust exposure from on-site constructien equipment will be below the de minimis cancer risk threshold at the nearest homes along Baldwin Avenue and/or Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR: p. 4-29.) Further, while thero rnay be some concems regarding ACMs within exisiing buiidings, adequate mechanisms are in place to insure safe exposure for both asbestos abatement workers as weli as the general public. (Ibid.) in addition, the Project will maintain a less thar significant threshold for VOC-containing compounds through the use of building materials "that are pre- coaied under factory c~nditions and limiting the amount of paint and other VOC- containing compounds applied on a given dey. (Ibid.) Regarding micrescale air quality impacts, the analysis for 21 intersections in the Project area presumed worst-case conditions for maximum local and regional CO exposure occurring at the same time cafculated at 25 feet from ihe roadway edge: (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) However, most residences near the Project site arz generaliy beyond 25 feet from the edge or the roadways analyzed. (Ibid.) In addition, the analysis shows that peak hour CO leve4s, even in very ciose proximity at all but one of the analyzed intersections, do not exceed the Califomia one-hour CO standard. (Ibid.) Further, for the one locaiion with a possible exis'ting violation, Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, the theoreticai peak levels will drop to below the standard by 2002 because of "cleaner" cars in the future. (fbid.) Also, all future one-hour CO concentrations for theoretical worst-case conditioRS will be below ` -30- 6197 the ailowable threshold. (Ibid.) Further, the Projeci wiil not cause any new violations of the standards, nor measurably or substaniially worsen any existing violaticns of the cne-hour CO standard. (Ibid.) Regarding odors frcm the racetrack horse bams, odor has not been a majcr issue at ;he existing shopping center. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) Existing odors are minimized by prevailing winds and by odorlmanure management practices at the track and bams. (Qraft EIR, p. 4-32.) Dunng hours wnen the snopping center use is heavy, ~~vinds are overvvhelmingly from the Pro}ect site toward the barns. Bam odor during the day is carried from the bams toward the grandstands. (Ibid.) Although odor potential reaches a maximum late at night, the site use is essentialfy zero at that time. (Drait EIR, p. 4-34.) In addition, afthougn axcanded uses will bring more people to the shopping center, the character or in'tensity of existing odors wilf not change as a result of the Project. ( ibid.) Odor impacts are, therefore, not considered signiiicant. (lbid.) Regarding mobile source impacts to air quality, there is only a limited patential for reducing any large percentage of these Proiect impacts sinc2 all poientialfy signiflcanf air puality impacts come from mobile source emissions and are beyond the direct control of the Project Apelicant. (Ibid.) Although some "standard" mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during construction will be adopted, they fail to address the basic transportation-related air quafity impacts. flbid.j Mitigation of Project-related andlor cumulative air quatity impacts wiff be limited in scope and are clearly not of sufficient magnitude to achieve sub-significance threshold levels. (Ibid.) Therefore, Project-specific and cumulative development in accordance with the City of Arcadia General Plan may contribute io the cumulative air quafity problems in the South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") du~ to generation of motor vehicle traffia (Ibid.) As a result, Project-retated air quality impac'.s are considered a significanf unavoidabfe adverse impact. (Oraff EIR, p. 4-36.) Although the Project may result in signincant air quality impacts, the Project is consistent with transpor~ation controf ineasures ("TCMs") to reduce the number of vehicle trips (i.~., througn encouraging carpooling and high occupancy vehicle usage). These TCMs are ~ontained in SCAGs Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") and the Air Quality Managemenf Plan ("AQMP") adopted by the , -g~- 6197 City. (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) Therefore, the Project promotes the RCPG and AQMP policies relating to the promoiion of high occupancy venicleltransit use. (Ibid.) Section 5. Resolution regarding altematives. The Ci'ty Ceuncil hereby dedares that It has cansidered and rejected as infeasible the altematives idencified in the Draft EIR and described below. CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of aitematives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer subs~antial environmerttal advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manrer within a rzasonable period of time considering the economic; environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must onfy evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparaiive merits of the altematives. (n all cases, the considerafion of alternatives is to be iudged agairst a'Yule of rFason." Tne lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" altemative identined in the E]R if the alternative does not provide substantial advaniages over the Project and (1) through the impasition of mitigation measures the ernironmentaf effects of a Project can be reduced to an ac~eptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations which make the alternative inreasible. The Draft EfR identified the obiectives established by the Project Applicant, Westfield Corporation, Inc., for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion, which are to: • Provide for the expansion of the existing mall in order to maintain the viability of the shopping center. The existing shopping ce~ter is approximately 25 years old, and needs to be expanded, remodeled and remerchandised in order to cantinue to meet the needs of the marketpface, adapt to changes in the retail environment, and attract the best retail concepts to preserve and grow its market share. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.) • Aliow for the construction of aoproxirttately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003), and a Text Amendment (T.A. °9-006). (Ibid.) . To create new jobs for Arcadia residents as well as provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) j -32- 6~97 ,4. Altemative 1 - "No ProiecY' Altemative 1. Descriotian. Under the "No Projec:" Altemaiive, the Project would not be imp.lemented and the existing General Plan and Zoning designations would remain uncn~nged. Also, the current City Council Resotution No. 4185, wnich controis development of the site, would remain in effect. (Draft E{R, p. 6-4.) Under this alternatlve, =xpansion of the existing shopoing center would be limited to approximat~ly 300.000 sauare feet, in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 4185. (ibid.) Also under this altemative, the two restaurant pads would be excluded. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) All other components of the Proiect wouid remain the same under this altemative, except the square foctages, including the theaters, would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. (Ibid.) Because of the exciusion of the restaurant oads and the reduction in sa;uare footage, this altemative is expected to slightly reduce the poiential aesthetic impacts associated with the Project. (lbid.) In addition, potentiai air po(lutant emissians under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 50 percent since the "No ProjecY' Alternative is limi'ted to only 300;000 square feet of expansion. (Ibid.) Tnis altemative would reduc° potential Projec't generated emissions of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxide, although the thresholds would still be exceeded and considered significant. (Ibid.J Projected carbon monoxide emissions would be below the SCAQMD throsholds and not considered significant. (Ibid.) Furher, under the "No ProjecY' Altemative, the total acreage impacted by grading wou(d be slighfly reduced due to the reduced building area. (Ibid.) However, all proposed s'truc#ures under this alternafive would be constructed in generally the same location and potential geology and soils impacts would generally be the same as the Project. (Ibid.~ ~ Additionally, under this altemative, the Project's potential noise impacts would be reduced 'oy approximaiefy 50 percent. However, no significant noise imoacts were identified with the Proiect. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) Also, under this alternative, the demand for public servic~s generated at the Project site would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, incfuding the patential impacts on police and fire services. r 33- 6197 (Ibid.) Further, the "No Project" Altemative wouid generate fewer vehicle trips and would 'nave fewer potential trarfic-related impacts than the Project. (Ibid.) Also; under this alternative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. (Ibid.) Since the "No Proiect" Altemaiive would Involve iewer environmental impacts, this alternative ~,s considered environmentally superior to th2 Project. (Ibid.) 2, rindin . The City Council finds that although the "No ProjecY' Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, It is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 3. Supportinq Explanation. The "No Project" Altemative would reduce but not eliminate potential aesthetic, air quality, landluse planning, noise, public s2rvices, +.rarspor~ationitraffic; ard utilitieslservice systems impacts wnen compared to the Project. (ibid.) Impacts to geology/soiis would be generaily the same under this alternative, although these impacts are not considered signiricant under the Projec;. (1bid.) Air quality impacts would still occur with the "No ProjecY' Alternaiive and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would sfill be requlred. in addition, `hls altemative does not meet the Project objec:ive to clfow ior the construction of approximately 600;000 square feet of additional retail space through aoproval of a General P{an Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment. (Drait EIR, p. 6-2.) Further, without meeting this objective, the "No ProjecY' Altemative cannot adequately fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viability ef the existing shopping center and creating new jobs for Arcadia residents and providing additioral sales tax revenue to the Ciiy. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council fnds that the "No Project" Altemative is infeasible because it faiis to meet Proiect objectives and reiects it. B. Altemative 2- Reduced Intensitv Altemative (450 000 Sauare Foot Exoansion i . Descriotion. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, an expansion of 450,000 square reet is proposed. Since the amount oi square rootage oroposed under this r -sa- sis7 alternative 2xceeds the amount currently allowed under the General Plan, a General Pian Amendm~nt would still be required. (Draft EIR, o. 6-7.j All other components of the Project would remain the same under this altemative, except ttiat the scuare F footage, including the theaters, would be r2duced by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.) Regarding aesihetic Impacts; this aliemative inclucies the -estaurant pads proposed at the northwest cemer of the site and therefore would not reduce ootential aesthetic impacts along Baldwin Avenue. {Ibid.) Although the Reduced Iniensi'ty Altemative would slightly reduce the bu(k and mass of the expansion ~o the east due to reduced square footage, it is not 2xpecied to significantly reduce the aesiheiic Impacts associated with the Project. (Ibid.) The Reckuced Intensity Alterrative would reduce air pollutant emissions generated by Project-related frafFic by approximately 25 perc°nt. !Ibid.) ,4lthough this altematlve would reduce the projec'ted exceedance of the SCA~MD Threshold Criieria, the thresholds would s~ill be exceeded and considered signincant. (Ibid.; In addition, the Reduced fntensity Altemative would slightiy reduc2 the total acreage imoacted by grading due to the reduced building area. (ibid.) Hcwever, all oroposed structures would be constructed in the same locatiors, and geologic constraints relating to faulting and seismicity wouid be the same. (lbid.) I herefore; potential geo(ogy and soils impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would ganeralfy be the same as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.) Under the P.educed Intensity AlternatiVe, the expansion of the Wes~eld Shoppingtown would still exce~d the currently allowable soace under the General Plan by about 150,000 square feet. (Ibid.} As a result, a General Plan Amendment would be required as well as a Zone Change to accommodate the res,aurant pads, western expansion, and eastern expansion. (Ibid.) In addiiion, potenfiai land use compatibility impacts r'rom the Reduced Int2nsi'ty Alternative regarding trafiic, air quality and noise would generalfy be similar io the Project, although slightly less. (Ibid.) Due to the slignt reduction in associaied traific volumes, the Reduced intensity Aiterrative would result in siight reductions of the noise volumes on adjacent arterials incfuding West Huntington Dnve and Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) , -35- 5197 However, construction noise impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternativ~ would be generally similar to the Projec~. (Ibid.j ~ lSnder the R~duced Intensity Altefnative, the demand far pub4ic , services generated at the Proiec: site would be reduced by approximately 25 percent as compared to the Proiect, fncfuding the Project's impact on police and fire services. (Ibid.) Also, the Reduced Intensi'ry Altemative would generaie fewer venicle trips and would have fewer tra~o-related imoacts than the Project. (Ibid.) In addition, under the Reduced Intensity Altemative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. llbid.) Since the Reduced Intensity Altemative would involve fewer environmental impacts, it is considered environmentally superior to `he Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) 2, rlndin . The City Council finds that atthough the Reduced Intersity Altemative Is environmentally suoerior to the Project, ii is infeasible be:zuse it fails to me=t Project objectives. 3. Suoportina Explanaiion. Although the Draft EIR iden'tified the Reduced Intensity Alfemative as ~nvironmen~ally superior, ihis alternative, when compared to the °roject, would not result in signifrcant reductions of impacts to aesthetics, air quality, geology/soils, land use/planning, and noise. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-7 and 6-8.) In addition, air quality impacts wouid still be significant under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and a Statement of Overriding Conside~ations would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) Further, this alternative does not meet the Project objective to allow for the construction of approximately 600,000 square `eet of addltional retail space through approvaf oT a General Pian Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) Further, without meeting this obiective, #he "No Project" alternative cannot adequately fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viaoility of the existing shopping center and creaiing new yobs for Arcadia residents and providing additiona4 sales tax revenue to the City. (Ibid.) Therefcre, 'the City Council finds that the Reduced intensity Alternative is inreasible 6ecause ii fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. . -36- 6197 C. Alterrative 3- Alternativs Desian 1. D~scrio'tior~. Under the Altemative Design, the expansion ar~a would move from tne easi~m portion of the propery `~o ~h° west. All oiher comoonents of the Projec±; including construction of 50G,000 square r'eet of additional 'ouilding space, would remain the same. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) P.s a result, this alternative would reduc2 the potential visual impacts io residents and 'travelers on West Huntington Drive in rafation to the historic Sania Anita Racetrack grandsiands. (Ibid.) i ne Altemative Design would, however, signrticantly increa~e the bulk and mass of the expansion to the west due to the revised buiiding envelope. (Ibid.) Under the Altemative Design, air pollutant emissions would be the same as the Project and wcuid result in projected exceedance of the SCAQMD Threshold Criter;a ror carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and niirogen oxide ~missions. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) In ~ddition, under this alternative the toial acreage impacted by grading wouid be the same as the Project, though on the westem portion of the Project site irstead of the eastem portion. (Ibid.) Potential geology and soiis impacts would generally be the same as the Project. (Ibid.; Under the Aitzrnative Design, the prcposed expansion would exceed the current allowaole space under the General °lan by approximately 300;OOG squar~ feet. (Ibid.) As a result, a General Plan Amerdment as well as a Zone Change would be required. (Ibid.) However, due to greaier sensitivity of the residential land uses located west of the sita as compared to the Santa Anita Racetrack, potential land us2 cempatibility impacts relating to aesthetics, traific, air quaiify and r.oise would aenerally be greater than the Project. (Ibid.) Under the Alternative Design, the demand for public services would be the same as the Project, including the ProjecYs impact on police and fire s2rvices. (Ibid.) Simiiar!y, this altemative would generaie the same number of vehicle trips as the Proiect and '~ ;ave the same impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and selic wasfe as the Projec±. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) In addition, traffic volumes and associated noise genera#ed from the Altemative Design may be similar to the Proje~t. Howev2r, due to closer proximity to the residential uses located along Ba{dwin Avenue, r -37- 6197 construction noise impacts would be greater. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) Since the Altemative Design would involve greater environmental impacts, it is cor,sidered environmentally mrerior to the Project. (Draf. EIR, p. 6-12.) 2. Findin . The City Council finds that the Altemative Design is environmentally inferior to the Proj~ct and rejects it. 3. Supportina Explanation. Implemen~atior or the Alternative Design wouid result in substantial changes to tne existing vie~NShed for residences Iecated along Baldwin Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) These residences are more sensiiive to visual changes than.the Santa Anita Racetrack to the north and east. Therefore, this alternative will result In greater aesthe'tic imp~c:s and is not corsidered ~nvironmentally superior to the Prciect. (ibid.j In addition to inaeased aesthetic impacts, the Altemative Design wouid increase poiential iand uselplanning and noise impacts when compared to the Prciect. (Drart EIR, p. 6-12.) Further, signincant air auality impacts would still occur and adopiion of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would siilf be required. (Ibid.) Since the Altzrnative Design would invoive greater environmental impacfs, the City Council finds ?'r~at this alternative is inteasible because it is environmentaliy inferior to the Projeci and rejecis it. D. Alternative Site During the scoping/pfanning process for the Project, the feasibility of aeveioping the Project on an Alternative Site was reviewed and *~jected. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) The main reason for rei°cting an analysis of an Altemative Site was that such an alterrative woufd not be consistent with the ProjecYs main objective ot modernizing and expanding the existing Westfield Shoppingtown. (Ibid.) In addition, development of the Project on an Alternative Site wouid result in significantly greater environmental impacis because the Project site is already developed as an existing mall. (Ibkd.) Section 6. Resolu'tion regarding growth-inducing impa~ts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 reeuires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a Project. This discussion must examine ways in which the Project could foster economic or popufaiion growth, or the construction of additional housing, either ' -38- 6197 directly or Indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 8-i.) Recardinc ihe Proiect's pciential for removal of ebstacles to growth, no major new infrastructure facilities ar2 required to develop this Projec~. (Draft ~fR, p. 8-2.) Existing faciliiies will be sufficient to accommodate the demands of the Project 2t lull buildout. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project is surrounded by urban de~aelopment and would not induc2 growth within currently undeveloped areas. (Ibid.) Regardinp any poiential need to exoand public services `or the Project, the cublic agencies consulted have indicated th~at this Project would r2quire the incrementai expansion of existing public services in order to maintain desired levels of servic~. (Ibid.) However, the City of Arcadia Flre and Police Departments are currently ser/ing the existing mall. This Proiect would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing impac:s to public services. (Ibid.) Regarding encouragement of economic activities; a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would temporarily be cr~ated during Proiect construciion. (Ibid.) This would be a diract, growth inducing effect of t,`~e Project. flbld.l . Long-term effecis woutd indude increased economic activity created by new tenan:s and use caiegories such as a multi-olex theater, res;aurancs, department s,ores, and ~nter~ainment and soecialty siores. (Ibid.j The Project Is expected to eenerate approximately 780 full-time jobs and 780 pari-time jobs. Therer"or°, the Project would directiy encourage or faciiitate °conomic activities in the City of Arcadia. (lbid.} Regarding any potential precedent setting action, the Froject is consisi=nt with the Citv of Arcadia General Plan Commerciai land use designations for the Project site. (Ibid.) However, the Project includes a proposzd General Plan amendment :o increase the allowable Flcor Area Raiio (FAR) from .40 to .50 and a proposed change io existing zoning standards to allow for an expanded building envelooe. (Ibid.) The Project si'te will remain commercial and the only modifications to the code involve design, 52±DaCIC, ana archiiectural issues. (Ibid.) Since the Project does not indude ary housing units, it will not directly resuff in any additional residents to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 3- 3.) Tne Project will ircreas2 the amount of commercial retail space in the City. (Ibid.j In `act, the proposed General Plan amendment exceeds the growth projeciiors for commercial land us2s in the City by approximately 3.8 percent. (Ibid.) However, the ; -39- 6197 Project site is already d=veloped and Proiect implementation will not open any ~dditional lands ror urban development Section 7. Resolu'tion regarding unavoidable and irreversible impacts. Imolementation'of the Proje~t will require the commitment of non-renewa~ie and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources such zs lumber and other rorest produc,s, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water. (Draft EIR, p. 7-^.) An increased commiiment of social servicas and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fre, and sewer and water services) wili also be required to serve the proposed expansion. (ibid.) Project development also represents the continued commitment of the site to urban uses. (Ibid.) The site hes 'oeen developed as a shopping mall Tor approximately 25 years. After the 50 to 75-year struct~ral lifespan of the buildings is reached; it is improbable that the site wouid revert to an undeveloped s'tate due to the large capital investment th~t will have already been committed. (ibid.) Section 8. Resolution adopting a Statement or Overriding Considerations. The City Council h~reby declaros that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 150°3, the City Councii has balanced the benefits of the Project against any unavoidable environmental Impac!s in determinmg ~~vhether to approve the Project. ii the benefiis of ihe Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, `hose imcacts may be considered "acceptable." i he City Council hereby declares that the EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Pr~ject. With the Implementation or the mitigation measures discussed in ~he EIR, thes2 effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impac:s as discussed in Section IV of these Findings. Tne City Councii her2by declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith ~ffort to elirninate or substantialiy mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project. T'r~e City Council hereby declares that to the e~ent any mitiga"tion rneasures recommended in the EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such rnitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project thai , ~y p_ 6197 would prohibit the realization of specifc economic, soc:al, and otner benefits that this City Councif finds outwe!gh the unmitigaied impacts. The City Council further fmds that except for the Project, ali other altematives set forth In the E!R are infe2siole b=causz they would ~rohibit t}-re reaiization ot Project objectives and/or of specific ecenomic, social and oth~r beneTits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of ihe alternatives. Tne City Council hereby dec;ares, that, having redueed the adverse signifcan: ervironmental effecis of the Projec; to the extent feasible by adopiing the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benerits of the Project against its uravoidable advers2 Imoacis aft~r mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social economic, ane environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potentiai unavoidable adverse impacts and render tnose potentiai adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding corsiderations: . The Proiect will generate approximately 780 additional Tuil-time jobs and 780 additionai par-time jobs within the City of Arcadia. These will inciude a variety of newjobs in a wide range of income c;assifications, Including, but nct ;imited to, managers, sales persons; focd saruice; security, and maintenance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-58.) This wiil meet the Project ooiective to create new iobs tor Ar~,adia residents. I,Draft EIR; p. 2-1.) . Tne Proiect will generate adoitional tax revenue that may be used to renovate existing city racilities or construct new city facilities to provide service to the pubiic. (Drart EIR, p. 4-53.) This will meet the Projecf objective to provide additional sales tax revenue to the Ciiy of Arcadia. (Draft EIR; p. 2-1.) . Project implementation will encourage economic viabiiity by expanding and modernizing the existing Westfield Shoppingtown - Sanca Anita. (Draft E1R, p. 4-58.) This will meet the Project objective to maintaln viability or the shoqping center and preserve and grow its market share. (Draft EIR, p. 2-^.} -~1- 6197 The City Council hereby declares thaf the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identined significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that ::annot be mitigated. i he Board of Education finds tP~a't ±he Project benefiis autweigh the unavoidable ad~erse environmental effects iden'tified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acc2ptable. Section 9. Resofution regardina Certincaiion of the EIR. Tne City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Finai EIR in evaluaiing the Project, that the Finai E1R is an accurate and objective staiement that fully complies with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR retlects the lndependent judgment of the City Council. The City Council declares that no new significant imoacts as defined by State C~QA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been raceived by tne City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. The City Council certifies the Environmental impact Report based on the foliowing rindings and concluslons: A. Findinas. The foliowing signincant ~nvironmental impact has oeen identined in the Draft EIR and wiil require m~tigation as set torth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality. B. Conclusions. 1. All signifcant environmental impacis from the imolementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of tne rnitigation measures identified, will be mitigaied to a level of insignificance, except for the impact listed in Section A above. 2. Other reasonable alternaiives to the Project, which could feasibiy achieve the basic objectives af fhe Project, have been considered and r2jected in favor of the Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other consideraiions and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any r -42- 6197 altemaiives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those mcoroorated into the °roiect. 5ection 16. Resolution adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The City Council hereby adeots the Mitigation Mcnitoring ard Reporting Plan attached to this Resoluiion as Exhibit "A,." in the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as forth herein and the Mitigation Mcnitoring and Repcrting Plan, the Nliiigation Monitoring and Repor:ing Pian shall control. Section 11. Resolution regarding custodian of recard. The documents and materials that constitute the r=cord of proceedings on which ihes2 rinaings have been based are located at the City of Arcadia, 240 W~st Huntington Drive, Ar~adia, CA 91066~021. The custodian `or these records is the City of Arcadia, Develooment Services Department, Commurity Development Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Section 12. Resolution reparding staff direciion. ,4 Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Anaeles within ~ive ~5) working days of aporoval of the Project. Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoqiion of this Resolution. Fassed, approved and adopted this 5 day of September 2COC. F lsl ~t~'~ ~, ~~`V~~:~~ Mayar of the City of Arcadia aTTEST: ~~~ ~~~, q ~~~~'~ ~ City Clerk of the City of Arcadia Approved as to Form: ~r'~~~ ~ ~~ Stepnen P. Deitsch, Ci!y Attomey ; .~3- 6197 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the Ciiy of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the Clty Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of sald Council on the 5 day of September, 2000, and that said Ordinance was adoqted by the following vote, to wi't: AYES: Council Members Chandler, Chang; Marshall, Segal, Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None ~~ ~~ ,~ '~~ i~~~ City Clerk of the City of Arcadia r _44_ 6197 RESOLUTION N0. 6198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL dF THE CfTY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 2-1 - CfTY GENERAL PLAN LANQ USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 'SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCRE,ASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR RREA RATIO FROM .40 TO .50 FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGT~WN - SANTA ANITA (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVEt~UE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE WHEREAS, this GeReral P{an Amendment (GP 99-001) was initiated by Westfield Corporation, Inc. to change the General Plan Land Use designation in the Communify DevePopment Section of the General Pfan to increase the maximum floor area ratio from .40 to .50 for the Wes~eld Shoppingtown - Santa Anita (the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Hur~tington Drive). WHEREAS, on July 25, a pub(ic hearing was hefd .before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time atl inte~ested persons were given full opportunify to be heard and to present evidence; and ` WHEREAS, the P{anning Commission on August 8, 2000 voted 4 to 0 with one member absent to adopt Resolution 1614 expressing the Commission's commerrts and recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment 99-001. WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing on: (1) the final Environmental impact Raport; (2) Genetal Pfan Amendment G.P. 99-001, (3) Zone Change Z-99-003 and (4) Text Amendment 99-006 for the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this heanng, the City Council reviewed and considered: 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits subrrtitted by the Community Developmant Division to the Cify CounciL 2, The record of the Planning Commission hearing regarding the General Plan Amertdment G.P. 99-001, Zone Change Z-99-003 and Text Amendmerzt 99-006 for the Wes~eld Shoppingtown - Santa Anita expansion; and 3. Ali letters, inforrr~afion ancl material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council pubfic hearing on September 5, 2000, including the staff -1- 6198 report, the Final EIR and all oral presentations and documentation presented at the public hearing, WHEREAS, at the'conclusion of the pu6lic hearing the C'rty Council reviewed the record of the proceeding, discussed and deliberated the issues, aPproved the General Plan Amendment and adopted said Resolution to reflect their findings and decision consistent with the staff report and #heir delibe~atiohs; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporafed as part of the findings set forth below. ~ NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORN{A DOES HEREBY F1ND, DECIDE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: , Se ion 1. That the factual data subrnifted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. . SecEion 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the proposed General Plan amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 is consistent with the maxirr~um FAR aHowed for cornmercial properties within the City. This woufd allow up to en additionaf 300,000 sq. -ft. of gross leasable area over and above the additional 300,000+ sq. ft. allowed with the current generai plan designafion. 2: That the approval af General Plan Amerrdment 99-001 vuifl not be detriroental to the public health or welfare, or in}urious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. 3. That the project as proposed including the mitigation measures, Final EIR (hereby incorporated by this reference) ar~d the Mifigation Monitaring and Reporfing Program will c.omply with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Pfan. That the City Councii concurs with the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant effect under provision of Califomia Public Resources Gode Section 21081 and C~lifomia Code of Regutatian Sections 15091 and 15093 as set forth in Resolution 6151, Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the Generaf P{an amendment to cF~ange the General Pfan Land Use designalion in the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the [naximum floor _Z_ 6198 area ratio from .40 to .50 for the Westfield Shoppingfown - Santa Anita (the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive). Section 4. The City Clark shap cert'rfy to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 5 of September 2000. , /s/ GARY A. KC2I~~.~I ~ ' - _.a~._.._~ Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: fS/ Jli~ ~3. ~~p City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~;, ~~~,~.. ~, ~~,~ .~ Stephen Deitsch City Attomey _~ 6198 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LQS ANGELES } SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify thaf the foregoin~ Resolution No. 6198 was passed and adopted by the City Council of ths City of said Council on the 5 day of September 2000, and that said Resolution was adopted by the folfowing vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal, Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None t~~ J D. ~~ City Clerk of the Cify of Arcadia -4- 6198 RESOLUTION N0. 6199 A RC50LUTION ~JF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RcSCINDfNG R~50LUTION 4185 AND ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CGRNER OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND BALDWIN AV~NUE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS RECLASSIrICATION TO THE C-2 & D AND G2 D& HS ZONES WHEREAS, in order to profect and promote tne public health, safety and generai vaelfare of tne City of Arcadia ("City"), it is necessary that specific conditions be es~abfished to insure that the continued development and expansion of the regional shopping center on the proper~y at the northeast comer of Huntington Grive antl Baldwin Avenue (the "Property") generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A", wili be harmonious with the high quality of the existing shopping ~°nter and comnafible with development in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the D Architectural Design Zone regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the regulations sefforth herein shall control the development and use of the Property; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Repor~ has been adopt2d ceriifying that the d~cision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the firal EIR prior to adoption of tnis Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CI11' COUNCIL OF TH~ C!TY OF ARCADIA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Sec"tion 1. The City Council h~reby rescinds City Council Resolution 4185; provided, however, that in the ev~nt there is any success`ul cnallenge to all or part of this Resolution then the provisions of Resolution 4185 shall automatica(fy be deemed to be in rull force and etect. Section 2. The Ci'ty Council adopts th° following d~sign guicelines for the Property. 1. The Property shall continue to b~ develeped and used only for a high quality regional shopping center witn department stores, toaeth=r with supplemer,tary ~ specialty shops and facilities including restaurants, mulfi-olex theaterls), a food market or markets and not more fhan two (2) automobile convenience centers. All _~ _ 6199 development cn the Property shall be subject to the soecifc conditions set forfh in this Resolufion and all pians for any and all development on the Property shall be subrnitted by the owner of the Pr~pert,~ to fhe City for review and approval in accordance with all procedura! and substantive requirements set for~h in fhe Arcadia Municipal Code and resolutlons, rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of "the City. 2. All buildings cn the Property shall be constructed within the areas shown on the Design Overlay Site Plan tha! is attached hereto as Exhi6it "A" and made a part hereof. 3. Any and all preliminary site plans, floor pians, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans. concep~ual landscape oians and signing programs for development on the Property shall be submitt°d to the Development 5ervices Department of th~ City. Said plans shall be supject to design review and recommendation by the P{anning Commission fotlowing a public hearing, and rollowing its receip~ oT the Planning Commission reccmmendation, then deslgn review and aoproval, disapproval or Council followin a public hearing. The final plans shall modification by the City g substantially comply with the City approved preliminary pfans and shall be submitted by the owner of the Property to the Assistant City Manager/Develcpment Services Director," or hls/her designee, for aqproval, disapproval or modification. The Assistant City Manag°r/Development Senrices Director shall review the final plans fer cornpfiance vdith the approved preliminary plens• 4. No building p°rmit Tor any construction on the Property shall be issued unless all of the c~nditions hereof have been complied with or assurances satis`actory t~ the ,4ssistant City Manag>r/Deveiopment Servic~s Director have been made to insure tnat all such conditions wifl 6e fulfiiled. 5. Any use ofthe Property which is otherwise subject to the Conditional Use Permit provisions of fne City's Zoning Ordinanc= shail require a conditional use permit; provid~d, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Bullding Area C[mall ar°a] as shown on the Zoning/Design overlay site pian. g, Parking shall be provided on the Property in accordance with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance and or~-site parking spaces shall be provided at all times for all employees of the shopping centec If necessary to meet 2 6199 parking requirements; multi-levei parking structures ma~,~ be constru~ted on fne Property adjacent tc and east of the mall, in accordance with ntans aporoved by the City. ~, ~arking str,~ctures shall bG des'igned to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the structu~es. Tne parking structures shall be architectu-aliy compaiible with the mall architeciure and shall be subiect to tne review and apprcval of the City. g, -Any floor area within the mall common area(s) devoted to portable carts (not kiosks) shall ~ot be subiect tc the Ci'ry's Zoning Grdinance `or oroviding off-street parking spaces. g, All signs shail be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance, exc°pt that the r"ollowing shall be appiicable: a, Two (2) freesianding mall identification signs shall be allowed on the per'meter of th~ Property; on~ [1] on Baldwin Avenue and one [1] on Huniington Drive. The to:al area of said slgns shall rot exc~ed 35D sq. ft. per sign (including bo4h `aces). D, Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stor2s containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurantsl~ating ~stablishments containing 5,OD0 sq. it. or more, theatersicinemas and a food mark°t. Said signs sh~ll comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to aliowable square rootage. Tenant signs facing on an open-air mall area and not er.PGS2G~ t0 the oublic right-or-way shall be excluded from this provision. ~. Single-sided monument signs shall be aflowed for a food market, tneater/cinemas and restaurants/eating establishmen'.s containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more and that have public °ntrances `rom the extericr of tn° shopping mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the p°rimeter of the shopping mall structure or ooen-air mall area and located within planter arees. The total square footage of each sign shall not exceed 36 square fe~t. d, No more than two (2) multi tenant monum=nt signs shail b= allowed on the perimeter o~ the Property with identfication on =ach of not more than Tour (4) major t~nants. The to~al sign area for said signs shali not exceed of 500 sq. _3_ 6199 ft. (including ali faces). The design(s) sna{I be compatible with the mali identincation signs. 10, Ail sigrs shall be compaiible witn the signing program approved by the Ciiy Council as part of the design review process and shall be subject to fi~al review and aoproval oi the Assistant City ManagerlDevelopment Servic~s Director or his/her design°°. 11. Final lands~ape plans in subs~artiial compliance with the landscape plans aoproved by the City Council shall be prepared by a registered landscape ar~hitect and shall be submi*.ted to and approv~d by the Assistant City Manager/Gevelopment Services Director or his/her designee, before any building permit is issued ror any part of the project. Said plans shall include or be in cor~formance with fhe follovaing, without Ilmi~ation: a. P. 20 foot wide landscaped burer strip with a minimum six (5) `oot high earih berm shall be mainiained adjacent to Baldwin Avenue and a minimum ten (1~) toot wide landscaped buffer snall be maintained ad;~cent to Hurtington Drive. b. In addition to the landscaaing required in Section 11a. above, thr~e (3) percent or the parking arFas shalt be landscaped and the planting oeds shall be dis'tributed evenly througncut the °n'tire parking area. Landscaping shall no: be concentrated on only one (1) pcrtion of the parking area, but disparsed throughout the parking lot. Any unused space resulting from the design of thz parking spaces shall be used r'or planting purposes. No planting area or island shall nave an average width of less than thr~e (3) feet. The planting areas or islands shown on the fandscaping plans must be drawn to scale and the plants shall be cleariy 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 `iunfington Drive and Baldwin Avenue shall not be considered as part of the tnree (3) p°rcent "landscaping" oi the parking areas. Wher~ a parking area abuts tne buildings on the Property, the border plantings adjacent to those buiidings shall not be consider~d as part ot th~ Iandscaping of parking areas. ~_ 619° ~. The solid exterior walis or tne mail shall be developed with decorafive landscaping and tr~atmer~` such as a raised fandscaped berm. d, Tc racilifGte thz processing of landscap~~ng plans, a plart !ist shall be prepared giving fne 'ootanical and common names of tne plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (2.g. 1, 5 or 15 gallon con~ainers) and quantity of °acn. The plants shouid be listed alqhab°ticaily and zssianed key numbers to be us~d in locating the plants on the plzn. e, Additlonal parkway trees snall be instailed, if necessar~, a<. locatlons desigrated by the Pu'alic Works Services Director. These tr~es shail conrorm !o the City Master Plan and be irstalled in accordance with tne Public NJorks Services Deparment standards. 12. Llgnt star~dards on the Property shal~ be a maximum of 20 fee: in height. i h~ height of the light standards shall be measurec from ~he elevation of the adjacent pavement of the parkiny lof. Lightin~ shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjo,ning properties and pubiic rightsaf-way and shall b~ subject tc approval oT the P,ssistant City Manager/Development Servic°s Dlr~ctor or hls/her designe°. 13. The own°r of the Property shall provide adea,uate securiiy p~rsonnel for th° pro:°cfion and control of p°rsons and prop~rty on the Property. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by tne C~ty of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any new buildinas on the Properiy (including the parking structures). ~ 4. Structures located withln Building Areas P, and B, as shown on Exhiblt "q" snall maintaln a minimum setback of 20'-0" from the Baldwin Avenue property Ilne and shall b° Iimited to one (1) story with a maximum height of 25'-0", provided, hovdever, that any building maintalning a minimum se~back of 35'-0" from Baldwin Avenue shall be a maximum of cr.e (1) story with a maximum helght of 30'-0". In regards to Building Areas A and B, no more than one (1) building containing a maximum square footage of 10,000 sauare fe=t shall be allowed in each Building Area. ~ 5. Ther2 shail be a minimum unobstructed distanc° betw°en kiosks, between carts and bervdeen kiosks and carts of 15'-0". Kiosks and carts shall be harmonious in design. -5- 6199 ~ g, The following us2s shall be permitted: Apparel and acc~ssories stores Beauty and barb2r shops and figur~ salons Bookstores Camera and photographic supplies anG services Gepartrr~ent stores Drugstores =!ectronic equipment stares, induding video, DVD, comput2r equipment, communication equipment, cell phon°s, oagers and other types of electronic appliances Fabrics and sewing stores Financial insti'tutions including free-standing ATPJ~ machlnes Fitness centers, health clubs Food stores no great~r tnan 38,D00 sq. ~. in gross floor area Home fumisnings, furniture, appliance and interior design stores Housewares Imports, cards and gifts Luagag° Music, records, radio, video, DVD and television sales stores GptometrisU0o4icians Pet shops Res,aurants and other eating establishmGnts ofiering food and beverage s2rvice, including ou'tdoor dining, the sale of on-sit~ liquor and entertainment. Enteriainment is defined as such ac,iviiies as high t~ch interactive simufation games, live music, dancing, billiards, bowling, ping pong, shuff!eboard, banquet facilities ard otner family oriented group a~tivities and shall be incid°ntal to a r>staurantleating establishment use. Specialty food, liquor and tobac~o stores 5porting goods, hobbies and/or craft stores Theatersicin~mas Toys Variety stores Kiesks andlor carts wi'thin the enclosed and open-air mall cemmon area shall be permitted provided fne use thereof shall'pe in accordance witn the above !ist of permitt°d uses. Other retail specialty shops, except those expr~ssly excluded Other uses that the City Council determin=s are appropriate and compatible wiih a regional shopping cent°r. The foliowing uses shail be permitted only witn an approved Conditional Use Permit: Entertainment uses including such a~tivities as high tech interactive simulaiion games, live music, dancing, biliiards, bowiing, ping pong, 6 6199 snutfleboard, banquet faci!ities and other family-orienied group activities. Food service may be an incidental use in an entertainment facility. Tne following uses shall not be permitted: Body art studios including but not limi'ted to tattoos, body piercing (other than ears) and body painting Check cashing, instant cash, cash advance busin2sses (exclusi~e of ATM machines) Employment agencies Feed stores Gasoline service stations Messenger service Newspaper publishing Plumbing shops Printing or lithographing shops Self-service laundries and cleaners Taxidermist Telephone exchang° service Vending machines (on the °xterior of the enclosed and open-air mall areas as well as the exterior of all other buildings cn the site) ~7. The City Council may add to, amend or modify the provisions of this Resolution in a manner not inconsistent with the concept and substance o` this Resolution pjxovided that tne ~uilding enveloqes shown on the Design Overlay Site Plan shall not be altered. Section 3. The City Clerk snall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shal! become operative upon the efrective daie of Ordinance 2136 -7- 6199 reclassifying all or a poRion of the Property to the G2 D and C-2 D and H8 zones. Passed, aoproved and adopted this ~rd day of october, 20U0. I3/ ~'af~X A, ~C~VA~~~ ~. _. --- ------. Mayor or the City of Arcadia P,TTEST: ~~ ~~~ ~a ~~~~~ ~ City Clerk of the City or Arcadia APFROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~~ ~ I~~~ Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 8_ 61 °9 ST'ATE OF C.ALIFOItNIA ) CpUI~'TY OF LOS ?iNGELES ) S5: CITY OF ARCADI A ) I, 7t]?~E D. ALFORD, City Clerk or the Ci.ry of Arcadia, hereoy certifies that the forego;nQ Resolution No. 6 i 99 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadiz, signed by tne Mayor anci a?tested to by the Cit;r Clerk at a r°aular inee~ing of said Council held on the 3rd day of October, 2000 and tnat said Resolution was adopted by the ~oilowing vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Sega1 and Kovacic NOES: None .ABSENT; None u~~ ~~~~ ~o ~~~~~ ~iry Llerk oi the City of Ascad:u -9- - L c~ ~ v: i - -~ m:~mo ~ ;~oc~ ~ Q >-~~~ ~ ~L;O 0 ~'~' ~cJG'~~R ~ b/iL m v' • `~ 0 s ~ J Po~ ~p O ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 aJ~w ~ ~ w v~ °~ ¢ h V ~..- O . ~ J ~ _ m -as _ _ -. Q -~ a. ~ '~ ~~ U ~.I,._ z 2 Z ~ ,`4, o ~,- Q °~s y P ~I ~ v, ~ ~ ~ 5~~~ -7 ~~I . r Q ~ i~ 'w O C g U c C I 11 L~L. ~ '~ ¢I ~ ~ ~ ~ d Z Z~ Z ~ N ~ ~ O Q ~UL'~ F= ~ ~ ~ m U Z ~ (/I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ql ~ Ms~w qw ~ '~1•--r_ ~ . .'..C p ? u.r m ~ V-' ~ . ~ - I~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ I s a p ~>~ w \ t' °m~mmmm;nm~~ ~~ - rmm ~~mm~ ~ ~_r„ T ~{ "~~~~~: ~,~- ,. r r - ,~, ~~~. -~~~~. _i;~ ~ ~ ~ _ -i ~ _ ~ _ .<~ ' ~_ _ ~ ; `" ~ ~ ~~''~-= ~ ~: ~~, -- ~ \' - \c : -_ ~: i ~ '1-= ~ ' °_ ,~ _- :~~ I ' i 1J.~,. ,, - ~'- _ f ~~? - ~_ ~ `' f ; ~ _ __ =! - ~~ _ ~ ~ ~~ s c~e ~ ~ . , ~_,~l__'\ _ ~ f il ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ w ~F ~~ I ~~~ / ~: ~ , o ~ o , "~ ~ ` ~ ~,°~. ~ a~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~s~i,sss ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~s ~` ` ~ : ;~ ~ ~. .- _ ~, , . ~e ~y~ , ~€ .. ; ~ „~xss~y~ ~ ~ c'. _ ;~~~. .~~ "'~'':'- ~~,y~sn.. ~ ~~~. ~ ~'~ ~ ; ,, :~. ; ' °"° ~' ~~'' ~ ~~ ~ °" - ~~ ~ ~ ~~: ~':'~~ ~ - \` - ~~,~~S` _ _ _ b - 'u`w,W' ~ -~' I V ~ i S ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ I ~I = ~ .~nf,~ -~ i ~i i i i i ~i i,.~ i i~ rri ~ii ~ 91 I I f i ~~ir ~ ~ 9 ",~' ~,~ J ~ c ~ Q~ ~ z J ~ Ql~ EXHiBIT A RESOLUTION IVO. 6245 A RESOLUTiGN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE Clil' OF ARCADIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN R~VIEW ADR 2001-001 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE WHEREAS, in February, 2001, Westf~eld Ccrporation, Inc. filed an application fcr architectural design review ,ADR 2001-001) for a 276,~00 sauar~ foot retail expansion and a parking structure to accommodate 1,220 vehicles at the Westfeld 5hoppinatown - Santa Anita; and WHG~E.AS, on June 12, 2001 a public hearing was held before the Pianning Commission on said matier at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to pres2nt evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 with one member absent to recommend to the City Council approval of the archiiectural design review subjecf to the conditions recommended by the Deve!opment Se;vices Department. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOVVS: Section 1. I hat tne factual da~a suomiited by the Development Servicas Deoartment in the attacned report is true and correct. 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 are visually harmonious with 'the existing mali buildings and with the site; 2, That the design for the prooosed expansion will enhance the existing mall and cr~ate a positive physical image and environment; and 3. That the heigh±, massing and conrigurafion of the expansion are in scale with the existing mall. Sectian 3, That for the foregoing reasons, tne City Council approv2s the proposed archi4ectural design review (ADR 2001-D01) subject to the follov/ing conditior,s: .~ _ 6245 1. i ne iinal plans shaU be su6mitte~ to the Development Services Dir2ctor to ensure cornpliance with the approve~ preliminary plans and the materials as submitted. If the Development Services Director defermines that any changes to the plar,s or materials ar2 significant, the Development Services Director has the authority to remand the plar,s back to the City Council for further review. 2. Ir a market is included in the proposal, a 40" (forty inchj high scr~'n wall shafl be consiructed along the front of the market exterior to conceal the shopping car~s from the public. The wall desig~ shall be compafible with the ouilding material and desian and subject to further review and approvai of the Development Services Director. 3. The new expansion area and the remodeling of the existing mall buildings shall comply with the State of Cali~ornia's disabled access regulafions, incfuding path of travel requirements from the pub(ic way, access to the plaza area, etc. 4. Tne proposed parking structure shall be designed to provide adequate maneuvering and turning radii for standard passenger cars. Final plans shail be subject fo review and approval by the City's Traffic Engineer and shall address the issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisles widths and turning movements into and out of the circulation ramps. 5. Interior lighting ror ihe parking structure shall be included on the finai plans for review and approval by the Police Department. 6. The parking structure entrance height shall be designed for access by paramedic ambulances as determined by the Fire Chief. 7. All new landscape materials shall be of a size and quality in scale with the project. All new frees shali be a minimum of 36" box. Ali new shrubs snall be a minimum fiive (5) gallon in size. 8, All new signing on the exierior building fa~ades shall be subject to further design review and approval by the Developm~nt Services Director through the Sign Design Review process. 9. A securi'ry plan shail be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of a Ce~~ii icate of Occupancy for any new buildings on the Property. Additionally Wes~iield shall provide space within the property ror use by the City at a location to be approved by V~,fesifieid, the City Manager and Police Chief. The space _2- 6245 shall be comparable in size fo that presently ec~upied by the City's Police Departrnent on the properry. 10. Kiosks to be located in the open plaza areas shall be~ designed and constructed to the highest standards in accordance with the following criteria. The final design shafl be subjecf to review and approval by the Development Services Director or his/her designee based on the following criteria: 1) Kiosks and cart designs may be animated in nature and shall serve to accentuate the architecturai and aesthe:ic finish of the building facades, 2) Kiosks and carts may be clustered and may vary in height to enhance the generai character of the open plaza areas. In order to facilifate a festive environment, kiosks and carts may, subject to approval of the Building Offcial and Fire Marshall, encroach on the 15'-0" separation provided for in Secfion 2, " Paragraph 15 of Resolution 6199 dated October 3, 2000. 3) individual kiosks may vary in total area; however, no one (1) kiosk shall exceed 250 square feet in area. 4) Kiosks and carts shall be des+gned to be weatherproof and shall have illuminafion integrated into the design. 5) The maximum square feet of afl kiosks and carts in the open plaza shall not be greater than 10°/o of the total square feef in the open plaza area. 6) The uses permitted with the kiosks and carts shall be consistent with Section 2 of Paragraph 16 of Resolution 6199 dated October 3, 2000. 11. The plaza area shall include a focal point such as a fountain or other public art as approved by the Development Services Director. The doilar value of this focal point shail not 6e less than $.10 per square foot of gross leasable square footage of the expansion. in lieu of constructing an on-site focal point, the developer at his/her discre'tion may pay to the City, prior to obtaining the firsf Cerfificate of Occupancy for this project, a sum of money equal to the above-prescribed amount for a public art project at an off-site location selected by the City Council. 12, Flaf, Qlexiglas illuminated signs and internally iiluminated plastic-faced cabinet signs are prohibited. _3- 6245 i3. Tne design of the relocated bus sh°I±er shal! b2 submitted to and approved by' the Development 5ervices Director. 14. Any propcsed single-sided monument signs for a food market, theater/cinemas andlor restaurantsleafing establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more snall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Director through the sign Design Review process. 15. The proposed expansior., including the parking structure, snaif comply with the minimum 60'-0" clearance from tne property lire or an alternative measure shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Official, per the Building Code reauiremen*.s. 10. All City requirements ~egarding accessibility, fre protection, occupancy, building setbacks, safety, site desian, and water service aro to be determined through pian check and shall be compiied with to the satis~action ot the Buiiding Official, Fire Marshall, Development Services Director, and Public Works Services Direc'tor which indude, but are ' not iimited to the failowing items: 1) An adequatE number of fire hydrants shall 'oe provided based upon fhe building's area and type of construction as aetermined by the California Fire CodF. The Fire P~evention Bureau snail approve location of fire hydrants. 2) All areas shall be protected by NFPA 13 (1996 Edition) automatic fire sprinkler system. All work shall be done by a licensed C-1o Contractor. All sprinkler h2ads shall be quick response type heads. All underground work shail be done in accordance with NFPA 24. The automatic fire sprinkler system shall be monitored by a central or proprietary station. The project architect and sprinkler contractor shali confer with the Fire Prevention Bureau before commencing with the system design. 3) All areas shall be protected by a NFPA 72 (1996) fully automatic and addressable fire alarm system. All fire aiarm transmissions must be fuily addressable to a central or proprietary station and to the responsible dispafch center. The existing fire alarm panel shall be updated to meet this requirement. The project architect and fire alarm contractor shall confer with the Fire Prevention Bureau before commencing with the system design. _4_ 6245 4) Knox boxes snall be provided for access to any restricted areas, induding ea~terior entrances and individual uniis. 5) The acplicant shall provide marking and signs for fire lanes as det=rmined by the Fire Preveniion Bureau. 6) The appficant shall submit•grading and drainag2 olans prepared by a registered civil engineer subjecf to the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide calculations for both the gravity drainage sys'tem and the pump drainage system (if applicable). Computations should show hydrology, hydraulics, elevafions and all the detaifs required en the City's "Pump Drainage" sheet. 7) The applicant shall submit a separate eresion control plan prepared by registered civil engineer for Citys approval. 8) The applicant shall comply with the NPDES (National Pollution ~ischarge Elimination System) Standard Urban 5tormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). 17. The Council shall have first approved a resolution amending Paragraph 9d oT Resoluiion 6199 to permit up fo six (6) tenant identit"ication panels on each of two multi- tenant monument signs. Section 4. The City Clerk s"~all certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this itn day of AugLSt , 2001. ~`~ ~EC.~`~ ~~~Sr~ Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: ~ J ~~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 Step en P. Deitsch City Attorney -5- 6245 STAT'E OF CALIFORr1IA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JLTNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that, the foregoing Resolution No. 6245 was pzssed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, sio ed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 7th day of August, 2001 and fhat said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmemoer Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal NOES: None AB5ENT: None ~~ ~ ~o ~~~ City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 6 l~ew~~rM AcA~al~ f~f Coem~olty o~~~me• MEMORANDUM Development Services Department March 26, 2007 To: Mayor and City Council From: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director "V Jason Kruckeberg, CommunityDevelopment Administrator~'L!~ RE: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FOR WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL PHASE 1 B Attached are responses to written comments received on the Westfield Santa Anita Mall Phase lb expansion (ADR OS-026). This package includes copies of the comments received and responses to those comments. CC: William R. Kelly, City Manager Stephen Deitsch, City Attorney Corkran Nicholson, Planning Services Manager Reponses to Camments COMMENT LETTER 1 Patricia Glaser, Esq., Christensen, Glaser, Fink, dacobs, Weil & Shapiro, LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard Nineteenth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 COMMENT 1-1: This office represents both The Turf Club and Santa Anita Companies, Inc. with respect to the Westfield Mall Expansion. Today, the Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing regarding ADRS-26, in which Westfield LLC ("Westfield") has applied for architectural design review of an expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall (the "Mall Expansion" or "Phase lb"). Phase lb relies upon an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report ("EIIZ") certified by the Arcadia City Council in 2000. L INTRODUCTION As we will demonstrate below, under Yhe California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), an Addendum is the wrong document to analyze this project, and Phase Ib cannot be approved until at least a Supplemental EIIt is circulated to the public with accurate and up-to- date information regarding the potential impacts of Phase lb. Even if an Addendum were the appropriate document, the Mall Expansion could not be approved because this Addendum does not accurately analyze the Phase lb Mall Expansion nor properly disclose its potential environmental impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-1: The Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Phase lb expansion project. Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR is not required unless substantial changes to the project are proposed, new information of substantial importance becomes available, or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, change and either of the following occur: (1) one or more new significant impacts not previously discussed results; or (2) a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect results. A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is also required when new information of substantial importance becomes available and (1) mitigation measures or alternatives not previously thought to be feasible are now feasible, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or altemative; ar(2) considerably different mitigation measures or altematives which would substantially reduce significant effects on the environment are available but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. As City at Arcadia Westfield San[a Anita March 2~07 Page 1 Reponses to Comments described in more detail below, none of these standards is met, and a Supplemental or Subsequent EII2 is therefore not required. It is also important to note that even though the Phase Ib improvements aze well within the envelope of development evaluated in the Certified EIR, a thorough analysis of Phase 1 b has been included again in the Addendum. The Addendum is a comprehensive and accurate update of each issue area in the Certified EIR and properly discloses the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Addendum evaluates all of the 17 environmental issues identified within CEQA and is similar in format to the Cer[ified EIR. For each issue area, the Addendum includes an overview of the existing environmental setting, a discussion of impacts of Phase lb based on all of the most recent methodologies and thresholds used by agencies and a discussion of cumulative impacts, which includes an updated related projects list. For each environmental issue, the Addendum also includes any necessary mitigation measures, and a detailed comparison of impacts of Phase lb today with those impacts analyzed within the Certified EIR. COMMENT i-2: Further, regardless of which environmental document is prepazed, the City's analysis of the Phase lb Mall Expansion in the Addendum is flawed -- based on a misleading Project Description, based on inconsistent building area calculations -- and is inconsistent with the City's own General Plan. In this case, the Arcadia General Plan limits the Mall Expansion site to a Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") of 0.50. (General Plan, page 2.12, Table 2-A.) However, as demonstrated in the EIR and Addendum, the FAR for the expanded Mall will exceed 0.50, without the benefit of required environmental analysis or a General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission has no option but to reject the Phase lb Mall Expansion and order a complete and adequate environmental analysis. First, this letter will address the many inadequacies of the EIR and Addendum under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Second, we will describe the inconsistencies of the Mall Expansion project with the General Plan, including the misstated FAR calculations. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-2: The Project Description and building area calculations in the Addendum aze consistent with the City's General Plan and the prior City approvals in 2000. The Project Description clearly and comprehensively characterizes the proposed Phase lb improvements as well as existing conditions and is thus adequate for purposes of reviewing the Phase lb improvements. Specifically, with regard to building area, the building areas (prior to the completion of Phase la in 2004, with Phase la, with the currently proposed Phase lb, and with a future Phase 2) are clearly identified in Table 2-1 of the Addendum. When combined, Phase la, Phase lb, and Phase 2 equal 600,000 squaze feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA), which is the precise GLA number specified and evaluated in the Certified EIR (refer to Table 2-2). In addition, when City of Arcadia . R'estfield Sante Ani[a March 2007 Page 2 Reponses to Comments excluding any future Phase of development, Phase 1 a and the currently proposed Phase lb equal 370,943 square feet of GLA, well under the 600,000 square feet evaluated in the Certified EIR. Similar to the Certified EIR, these GLA numbers are consistently used throughout the Addendum. Thus, the square footages set forth in the Addendum are entirely consistent with the square footages analyzed in 2000 as a part of the Certified EIR and approved under the General Plan Amendment, Design Guidelines and other related approval documents (collectively, the "2000 Approval Documents". See Resolutions 6197, 6198, 6199 and Ordinances No, 2135 and 2136. The Addendum conservatively uses the Urban Land Institute's (ULI) definition of CLA. ULI's definition of GLA typically includes the floor area within retail buildings less a small discount for non-merchandised space (e.g., storage areas, store offices, corridors, etc.) As set forth in Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9220.253, the City of Arcadia's definition of GLA includes the total floor area designed far the tenanYs occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines or upper floors-expressed in square feet and measured from the centerline of joint partifions and from outside wall faces. The code provision also states that GLA shall also include kiosks within the common areas and that GLA is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales areas. The Code provision further specifies that GLA shall not include (a) service areas within mall tenant stores and (b) service areas that occupy less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the gross square footage of stores in excess of fifty thousand (SQ000) square feet. Service areas in excess of this percentage shall be oounted toward the GLA. Such service areas aze those areas specifically dedicated to employee use, storage and mechanical areas and employee restrooms. The ULI definition of GLA generally results in a larger square footage number when compazed with the number based on the City of Arcadia Code definition of GLA. For example, based on the City definition of GLA, the site included 922,451 square feet of GLA prior to the Phase la improvements. Using the ULI definition results in 1,098,596 square feet of GLA, which includes the 176,145 square feet of department store service areas identified in the Certified EIR. Thus, the analyses in this Addendum are conservative since use of the lazger ULI GLA number results in greater environmental impacts than would be expected with use of the smaller City of Arcadia GLA number. With regazd to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the site, a FAR of 0.50 was established for the Westfield property in 2000 through Resolutions 6198 and 6199. In addition, the FAR calculation methodology for the Westfield property was established in 2000 in the Certified EIR, the Genera] Plan Amendment and Resolutions 6198 and 6199. The Certified EIR explains the City's methodology for calculating the square footage permitted for this site with the 0.5 FAR limitation using GLA, as defined by the City's Municipal Code. The Certified EIR reads as follows: City ot Arcadia Westfield San[a Ani[a March 2007 Page 3 to Comments The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) represents the maximum non-residential building square footage that may be permitted. The maximum allowable intensity FAR for the project site is currently .40. This would allow up to an additional +/- 300,000 square feet of building space under the existing Genera] Plan. In order to construct the proposed project, the project applicant has requested an increase in the allowable FAR from .40 to .50. With an additional 600,000 square feet of GLA, a total of 1,522,451 GLA will be located on-site, resulting in a proposed FAR of approximately .43. p. 4-52. All of the documents approved in 2000 are clear that 600,000 square feet of GLA was approved and that GLA was used to calculate the FAR for the property. As discussed above, Phase lb fits into this 600,000 square feet of GLA approved in the Certified E1R. Specifically, Phase lb includes 115,000 square feet based on the more conservative ULI definition of GLA (which results in more building area when compared with the City Code definition of GLA of 100,800 square feet of GLA). Using the ULI definition, when including the Phase la improvements, which included 255,943 square feet of GLA, a total of 1,354,539 square feet of GLA would be located within the project sife. Based on the 79.118 acres that comprise the site, this GLA results in an FAR of 0.42. As stated in Section 4.9, Land Use, of the Addendum, this FAR is well below the FAR of 0.50 permitted for the project site as specified by the City's General Plan as it was modified in 2000 by Resolution 6198. Furthermore, as the Commission clarified at the hearing on Februazy 27, 2007 and in its Staff Report (refer to page 18), the City has been consistent and clear that the correct calculation of FAR utilizes GLA (City definition). In addition, the method of calculating FAR using GLA is also the same method used to calculate FAR within the Draft EIR for the racetrack mall development project dated October, 2006. The comment regarding the adequacies of the Certified EIR and Addendum are addressed specifically be]ow. See Response to Comment Nos. 1-3, 1-6 through 1-19, 1-21 and 1-23. COMMENT 1-3: II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES As pointed out in your Staff Report (dated Februazy 21, 2007) ("Staff Report") CEQA Guideline 15162 requires that the City prepare, recirculate and certify a subsequent or Supplemental E1R whenever, among other things, "substantial changes are proposed in the project which will 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." (Guideline 15162; Staff Report, page 13.) City of Arcadia W'es[field San[e Anita March 2007 Page 4 Reponses to Comments Similarly, a subsequent or 3upplemental EIR is required where "substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR...." A Supplemental EIR is also required when "new information of a substantial importance" shows Chat the project will have additional significant impacts. (Id.) In this case, the project presented incorporates substantial changes (including partially subterranean parking with additional grading impacts), changed circumstances (including delays in construction of the project and increases in new traffic and new related projects), and new information (regarding the true size of the project and the seventy of many areas of potential impact), RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-3: See Response to Comment No. 1-1 regarding the adequacy of the Addendum and the lack of need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR. As shown on Figure 2-3 of page 10 of the Addendum, the project falls well within the envelope of development evaluated in the Certified E1R. Specifically, the proposed building footprints fall entirely within the expansioa area identified as Building Area C in the Certified EIR, and the building heights are well below the 85-foot height limit set forth forthe H8 Overlay area evaluated in the Certified EIR. In addition, the new pazking azea for the Phase lb has been designed to be integrated into the topography of the site 6eneath the new retail buildings. As discussed in detail in Response to Comment No. 1- 19, below, the grading necessary for the partially subtenanean pazking facility would not result in any signi&cant impacts. In addition, as discussed in detail in Response to Comment Nos. 1-6 through 1-19, 1-21 and 1-23, below, there are no changed circumstances or new information associafed with Phase lb thaC would generate any new significant impacts or result in a substantial increase in any significant impact identified in the Certified EIR. Thus, as determined by the City, PCR Services Corporation, Webb Associates, and an envirorunental consulting firm specializing in CEQA that also reviewed the Addendum, a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the Phase lb improvements. COMMENT 1-4: The CEQA inadequacies of the Addendum have been previously raised in correspondence to the City on the record from, among others, Caruso Affiliated (which correspondence is incorporated herein by reference), but it is helpful to recount these deficiencies once more. These inadequacies arise in the important areas of project description, traffic, cumulative impacts, water quality, noise, public services and land use impacts. The inescapable conclusion is that, in order to comply with CEQA, the City must prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR for the Mall Expansion and cannot approve Phase lb until the public and the City of Arcadie ~ ~ ~i'estfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 5 Reponses to Comments City decision makers are fully informed of the environmental effects of the project through circulation of an adequate document. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-4: This comment refers to comments within another letter written by Caruso Affiliated and submitted to the City of Arcadia in June 2006. This letter is attached and responded to below as Response to Comment Nos. 1-25 to 1-76. As demonstrated by the responses to these comments and as set forth in the Addendum and Staff Report, the Phase lb improvements would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in any significant impacts identified in the CertiFied EIR. Also note that the comments made by Caruso Affiliated in their June 2006 letter were made without even reviewing the Addendum. The Addendum was not finalized by City staff until January 2007. The City adequately considered each of the comments in the 7une 2006 letter prior to release of the Addendum. COMMENT 1-5: A. The Proiect Decription fsicl is Inaccurate, Inadequate and Misleadin~. The most blatant CEQA inadequacy in the EIR and the Addendum is the shifting and understated size of the project. It is well-established that an accurate and complete Project Description is the essential starting point for any legally adequate environmental analysis. Here, the Certified EIR and the Addendum do not accurately describe the size and extent of the expansion project due to inconsistencies, inaccuracies and obfuscations in presenting the size of the project. ~ As discussed below regarding the City's FAR calculations, the project appeazs to have grown in scope by approximately 200,000 - 400,000 square feet based on a revisionist interpretation of the measurement of the building area. Where the Certified EIR (and the City Zoning Code and General Plan) looked at a project which would have an FAR of approximately .44, the true size of the Mall Expansion is now revealed to be over the allowed .50 FAR, based on new definitions of Gross Leasable Area which have never been applied by the City befare to floor area calculations. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-5: Please refer to Response to Comment No. 1-2 above regarding the accurate and comprehensive characterization of the Phase lb improvements as well as the consistency of the Phase lb improvements with the FAR for the site set forth by the General Plan. Please also see Response to Comment No. 1-3 regarding the building envelope for the project. City of Arcadia W estfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 6 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-6: B. The Addendum's Traffic StudV Is Limited in Scope and LesallV Inadequate. (1) No AM Peak Hour Traffic AnalVSis. The traffic study fails to analyze the weekday moming AM Peak Hour time period (7 am - 9 am), stating that the majority of retail uses would not be open during that time. Only weekday PM Peak Hour (4 pm - 6 pm) traffic was studied. (Addendum p. 114.) This omission excludes, among other things, the morning traffic impacts of extensive grading, excavation and dirt hauling (159,352 cubic yards of dirt must be exported from the site) that will occur during the construction phase to build Westfield's partially subterranean parking structure near Baldwin. Clearly, the AM Peak Hour analysis is needed to present the necessary "worst case analysis" to ensure all potential traffic impacts are disclosed and mitigated. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-6: Page 7 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C of the Addendum explains why no AM Peak Hour traffic analysis was necessary for this project. Shopping center projects that are made up of retail space do not generate much moming peak hour traffic because the stores are not yet open for business and customers are not yet on the roadways. If the project contained offices or residential uses that generated trips during the moming peak hour, a morning peak hour analysis would have been required. This study scope element was confirmed with the City of Arcadia staff at the commencement of the Addendum preparation and is consistent with the Certified EIR. Furthermore, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition indicates that the addition of 115,000 square feet GLA to the existing Westfield shopping center would only generate 38 moming peak hour trips. This level of trip generation would not be sufficient to produce a significant impact at any of the project study locations. In terms of the potential construction traffic impacts on the moming peak hour traffic, two points should be made. First, most construction worker traffic arrives on the site prior to the typical morning commute peak hour and leaves the site prior to the aftemoon commute peak hour. Therefore, construction worker traffic will not impact the morning and aftemoon peak hours. Secondly, the City of Arcadia imposes hourly restrictions on truck trips, including the dirt haul truck trips, that will prohibit truck movements during the moming and aftemoon peak commute hours. Thus, the analysis of AM peak hour trips is not necessary to identify and analyze "worst case" conditions from customer, employee, or construction traffic impact perspectives. The "worst case" set of background and project traffic conditions occurs under weekday afternoon peak hour conditions or under mid-day Saturday conditions. Both situations were fully analyzed in the Addendum and approved by both City staff and the consultant team reviewing the Addendum on behalf of the City. Cify otArcadia Wes[f~eld Senta Anita March 2007 Page 7 to Comments COMMENT 1-7: (2) No Traffic Counts Durine Racin~ Season. The traffic study is flawed due to the fact that weekday PM Peak Hour (4 pm - 6 pm) traffic was studied in November and eazly December "when the Santa Anita Racetrack is not in season." (Addendum p. ll4.) Consequently, the 2004 traffic counts upon which the Addendum's "existing" traffic conditions are based were not taken during the busy racing season whan the traffic conditions in the vicinity are clearly significantly worse. In fact, these traffic counts are even inconsistent with and more limited than the Certified EIR traffic counts, which were taken in October, 1999 during the Oaktree racing season. The failure to count traffic during the heaviest "worst case" traffic period is a serious flaw and appears to be calculated to avoid significant impacts greater than those studied in the 2000 EIR, which would require recirculation of a subsequent EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-7: Page 7 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C to the Addendum provides a discussion of the appropriate time period for traffic counts for this project. The traffic counts for the project were taken in late November and early December 2004 when the activity levels at the shopping center aze near their busiest of the year. Traffic counts on race days as reported in the Shops at Santa Anita Draft EIR were reviewed and were found to be comparable to the November/December counts taken for the shopping center Addendum. By using the traffic counts during the busy shopping center season, the Addendum actually uses the base data that produces the highest incremental impact for shopping center trips. Therefore, the Addendum uses the more conservative approach to traffic counts and the traffic analysis in the Addendum is appropriate. In addition, the most recent data and analysis in the Addendum confirms and validates the conclusions of the Certified EIR traffic analysis. The Saturday analysis presented in the Addendum used traffic count data from the first public draft of the Shops at Santa Anita DEIR. These counts were conducted during the Santa Anita Racetrack winter season. The Saturday analysis in the Addendum shows that the Phase lh project does not result in any significant impacts even under full racetrack traffic conditions. The incremental impact of the Phase lb project traffic is not high enough to create a significant impact whether the background traffic conditions assume Oaktree racing traffic levels, holiday shopping traffic levels, or Santa Anita winter racing session traffic levels. Based on the above, an Addendum is the appropriate CEQA document for the Westfield proj ect. City of Arcadia W'estfield San[e Anita March 2007 Page 8 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-8: (3) Traffc Studv Based On The Wrone Build Out Year. Analysis of the Phase lb project is primarily limited to its projected 2008 completion year based on the "approximate 17-month" construction period, which includes six months for site preparation and grading. Such an aggressive and optimistic time frame seems unrealistic based on the history of Phase la, which took over 30 months to complete (building permit issued 2/5/03 and finaled 9/8/OS). The impact of using an overly optimistic 2008 projected completion date is that the the [sic] Addendum avoids any consideration of the concurrent construction and traffic impacts of The Shops at Santa Anita, which, in fact is a reasonably foreseeable project. Thus, the Addendum excludes important and detailed traffic study information prepazed for The Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan, which was available to the public (and thus available for incorporation into the Addendum) in October 2006. Instead, the Addendum states: Since the racetrack mall development project does not yet have a completed traffic study and the draft generation numbers provided by the Santa Anita Park's traffic engineers are lower than previously assumed, the more conservative trip generation estimates from the Certified EIR were used instead. (Addendum, p. 143.) In fact, revisions were still being made to the Addendum at the time the updated traffic study for The Shops at Santa Anita was available to the public. The estimates from the Certified E1R were prepared in 1999; the omission of available up-to-date information results in an incomplete analysis. RESPONSE TO COMMENT l-8: The traffic analysis was based on the assumption that the Phase lb project was ahead of the Shops at Santa Anita in the entitlement process and at the time of publication of the Addendum, that is still the case. If the two projects were actually constructed simultaneously, the conclusions of the Addendum analysis would still apply (see pages 127 through 129 of the Addendum and pages 85 through 87 of Appendix C of the Addendum). For example, the construction crew for the Phase lb project would be far smaller than the construction crew for the larger Shops at Santa Anita project. The construction trips at the Phase lb site would be dramatically reduced during the peak November/December holiday shopping penod (when the traffic counts for the Addendum were taken) because the construction would be curtailed during the holiday shopping season. If the Shops at Santa Anita construction continued through the holiday shopping season, their construction trips could result in significant traffic impacts. The City would still require truck routes and restricted hours of operation for construction and truck trips and therefore the addition of Phase lb construction trips to a roadway system that also included Shops at Santa Anita construction trips would not create significant peak hour traffic impacts. ~ City of Arcadia Wes[Cield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 9 to Comments Regarding the Race Track project data, the Addendum uses the more conservative approach. At the time of the preparation of the Addendum, the Draft EIR for the Shops at Santa Anita was withdrawn and the project was being redefined includirig the elimination of a proposed .residential component. Therefore, the Certified EIR traffic data was used in the Addendum traffic study because it still represented a more conservative (i.e., higher) tnp generation for the race track projecf. The resulting traffic analysis is adequate, conservative and complete. The 17-month time period analyzed in the Addendum is a reasonable and conservative estimate for construction based on the size of the Phase lb expansion. Actual Phase la construction from groundbreaking to opening was approximate]y 18 months (and not 30 months as suggested by the commentor). For example with regard to air quality impacts, emissions actually improve as the buildout year for a project moves out since the SCQAMD emission factors account for improvements in air quality over time. In addition, in general, if the time period for construction of a project were extended, the impacts would be less given the reduced level of intensity of the construction work over the longer time period. From a traffic perspective, if the construction of Phase lb were delayed, the background traffic levels could grow to a level higher than the 2008 levels shown in the Addendum. However, the incremental impact of•the Phase lb traffic would still not be high enough to create a significant impact at any of the study intersections. Furthercnore, while it was anticipated that the Phase lb improvements would be ahead of the Shops at Santa Anita project, an analysis of potential overlap of construction between Phase lb and the related projects, including the Shops at Santa Anita Project, was included in the cumulative air quality and noise analyses within the Addendum (refer to pages 66 and 97 through 99). As demonstrated therein, overlap of the two projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to air quality and noise. COMMENT 1-9: (4) Inadepuate List of Related Proiects. The Addendum identifies 30 related projects in the vicinity during the development horizon year of 2008 and one related project (the Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan) during the development horizon year of 2015. A quick review of these projects shows that the list is out of date and does not include many projects in adjoining neighboring jurisdictions such as Pasadena and San Marino that could certainly have an impact on traffic at the Mall Expansion site. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-9: The related projects list in the Addendum is adequate. Pages 23 and 24 of the Addendum (Table 3-1) and Pages 18 and 19 (Table 3) of the Traffic Study include a list of 31 related Ci[v oTArcadia Westfield San[a Anita ~ March 2007 Page 10 Reponses to Comments projects. Review of this list clearly shows that the Cities of Arcadia, Pasadena, San Marino, Monrovia Sierra Madre, and Temple City as well a's Los Angeles County were contacted to obtain lists of theit potential development projects. At the time of the preparation of the Addendum, these projects represented the official lists of the projects from those cities that might generate enough traffic through the Phase lb study intersections to make a measurable difference in the volume/capacity ratio at those locations. The City of Arcadia staff reviewed and approved the list at Yhe time of report preparation. Because projects get added and deleted from these lists continually, the future traffic analysis in the Addendum added a general background traffic growth factor to account for changes to the lists and new projects that may not have been known at the time of list preparation. Page 129 of the Addendum and Page 17 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C to the Addendum discuss a 1% per yeu ambient traffic .growth that was added to all traffic movements at all of the project study intersections. Thus, the trips generated by any changes to the list of related project h-ips would be accounted for in the background traffic growth calculations. COMMENT 1-10: (5) Inadequate Study Area. The Certified EIR only studied traffic at 21 potentially impacted intersections, and the Addendum follows with 23 study intersections in its traffic analysis. In contrast, the traffic study for the Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan was required by the City to examine 42 intersections. Clearly, the increased traffic congestion in the area since the Certified EIR necessitates a wider analysis to ensure than all potentially impacted intersections are studied. Intersections at the periphery of the Addendum's study area show Levels of Service ("LOS") of "D" and "E," suggesting that, if additional traffic represented by the appropriate peak hour, racing season, study year and relatad projects were included, the impacts could likely extend further. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-10: The Addendum provides an adequate number of analyzed intersections in the Traffic Study. The study area must be large enough to capture all of the impacts of the project and the appropriate size of the study area is typically determined by measuring the project impacts at the periphery of the study azea. If there are significant impacts at the periphery of the study area, good traffic engineering practice would dictate that the study area be enlazged. 5ince project traffic dissipates as the distance from the project increases, project impacts would also lessen as distance increases. Thus, if the study area captures all of the project impacts, no additional impacts would be expected beyond that azea. Ci[y of Arcadia Wes[feld Santa Anita March 2007 Page I1 Reponses m Comments The study areas for the two projects are different because the likely traffic impacts of the two projects are vastly different. The Shops at Santa Anita DEII2 projects a PM peak hour traffic generation of 2,890 trips. In contrast, the Phase lb PM peak hour trips generation would be 176 trips. Since the Shops at Santa Anita would generate over 15 times more traffic than Phase lb, it is not surprising that the City would require the Shops at Sanfa Anita to study more intersections. In fact, the 23 study intersections fully capture al] of the Phase lb project impacts. There are no significant impacts at the periphery of the sfudy area and changes to the operational Leve] of Service of the peripheral intersections would not change the conclusions of the Addendum. As explained on page 31 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C to the Addendum, the City of Arcadia considers a project impact to be si~ificant if the project increases the capacity utilizaYion of the intersection by 2% or more and the intersection is operating at Level of Service E or F. Table 4-16 on page 131 of the Addendum and Table SB on page 33 of Appendix C of the Addendum show that the additional traffic added by Phase lb does not meet the City's criteria at any of the study locations. At no study intersection did Phase lb generate enough traffic to utilize 2% of the intersection's capacity and therefore the project cannot create a significant impact regardless of the operaCing Level of Service of the intersection. The comment is incorrect in that no amount of adjustment to tbe intersection Levels of Service would change the conclusions of the Addendum. Phase lb simply does not generate enough weekday PM peak hour traf5c to meet the City's criteria of 2% or more capacity utilization. Page 137 of the Addendum and Page 34 of Appendix C of the Addendum discuss the fact that a Saturday analysis was also conducted. The Saturday base data was taken from the December 2005 version of the Shops at Santa Anita DEIR and included traffic from the race track. Again, tbe trips generated 6y the Phase lb projecY did not result in any significant impacts, even without f1~e Phase 1 improvements in place. At only three intersections did the Phase 1b project utilize more than 2% of the intersection capacity and none of these three locations had operating conditions lower than Level of Service D. Again, there is nothing to suggest that the Phase lb study area is not large enough. COMMENT 1-11: (6) Mischaracterization of "Baselioe" Traffic. According to the Addendum (p.115), "Existing Conditions" are those that existed in 2005, but based on traffic counts taken in November and early December of 2004 (but not during racing season). The Addendum's description of "Existing Conditions" being 2005 is deceptive and misleading because it implies that the Santa Anita racing season traffic dunng that year has been taken into account, when it was explicitly excluded from the 2004 traffic counts. Further, the Addendum claims that it "affords an opportunity to directly compare 2005 field counts to Certified EIR projection of 2005 conditions." In fact, the Certified EIR used 2002 as the build out for the Phase lb projected traffic. Ci[y of Arcadia WestGeld San[a Anite Maroh 2007 Page 12 to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-11: Nowhere in the Addendum does the document state or imply that the race track traffic is included in the baseline traffic counts. The text and the footnote on page 7 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C to the Addendum specifically states that the race track traffic was not included in the base traffic counts and explains the results of a comparison of traffic counts during and outside of racing season. With regard to the buildout year the Certified EIR actually used 2002 as the build out yeaz for the full development of the project (i.e., all 600,000 squaze feet of entitled development). Page 15 of the Traffic Study included as Appendix C of the Addendum explains that the portrayal of "Certified EIR 2005 conditions" is indeed a projection of the Certified EIR's year 2000 base conditions to a yeaz 2005 base so that the conditions in the Certified ER could be more directly compared to today's actual conditions. Since the Phase lb environmental document is an Addendum of the year 2000 Certified EIR, an attempt was made to more directly compare the conditions and conclusions of the 2000 document to today's conditions. There was no attempt to mislead the reader. The text explains the numbers that are based on actual counts and those that are based on a projection of historical data. If traffic counts were taken in 2004, those numbers were grown each year by the ambient growth factor of 1% to conservatively replicate traffic growth and conditions. The most recent data and analysis in the Addendum confirms and validates the conclusions of the Certified EIR traffic analysis. COMMENT 1-12: C Chan ed Circumstances Include Revised "Build Out" Year and Lack of Mitipation. The Certified EIR analysis was based on a two-year construction timeframe with 2002 being the worst case for build out of Phase lb. In fact, now in 2007, the Mall Expansion described in the Addendum is not even half built and Phase lb is not yet started. In addition, the Phase lb construction is now expected to occur over approximately 17 months, with completion optimistically projected to 2008. Furthermore, major traffic intersection and ramp improvements required under the Certified EIR (and anticipated to be completed by 2002) have not yet been commenced, including improvements at Rosemead and Huntington, Foothill and Baldwin, and Baldwin and I-210. The Addendum fails to disclose that traffic impacts at these intersections remain significant and unmitigated. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-12: The project description in the Certified EIF2 states that the project "could" be completed within two years afler approval [emphasis added]. The statement that the project could be City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 13 Reponses to Comments completed witlun two years does not require that the project, in fact, be completed within two years. The phased approach used by Westfield has been consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR, and is also consistent with City understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, the Addendum, which includes an analysis of potential Phase lb impacts for all of the environmental issue areas covered under CEQA, demonstrates that the change in the buildout year for Phase lb does not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in any already identified significant impacts. For example, with regard to traffic impacts, the following intersection locations ~were found to be significantly impacted by traffic from the full build out of the 600,000 net square feet of proposed project as shown in Table 3-4 of the Traffic Study included as part of the Certified EIlZ. • Baldwin Avenue West & I-210 Westbound Ramp • Baldwin Avenue & I-210 EB Ramps • Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive The Certified EIR did not measure the impacts of project phasing and therefore the document did not identify "project mitigation measures" for Phase ]a of the pxoject. The City established improvements that should be accomplished when the project reached or exceeded 400,000 square feet of development, but these improvements were identified as Conditions of Approval and not as CEQA project mitigation measures. The project, even with the combined Phases la and lb, still does not total 400,000 square feet that would trigger the Condition of Approval related to additional traffic improvements. The existing (Year 2005) weekday p.m. peak hour LOS analysis provided in Table 2 of Appendix C of the Addendum shows the following V/C ratios and LOS grades for the above intersections (Column C of the table below). The incremental impact of the full 600,000 square feet project, as measured in the Certified EIIt, is shown in Column D1. Since the traffic generated by Phase I a of the proj ect is approximately 50% of the total expansion generation, the incremental impact of Phase la would be approximately one-half of the impact of the full project (as shown in Column D2).: C. Existin 2005 D. Incremental Im act' DL Volume Level of Original Capacity Service 600,000 sf D2. A. B. Intersection V/C LOS Pro'ect b Phase lA ` 1 Baldwin Ave West & I-210 Westbound Ramp 0.8~7 D 0.03 0.015 3 Baldwin Ave & I-210 EB Ramps 0.760 C 0.09 0.045 City at Arcadie Wes[Geld Santa Anita ' ~ March 2007 Page 14 Reponses to Comments 10 Rosemead Blvd & Huntington Dr 0.924 E 0.03 0.015 ° Incrementa! increase in vo(ume%apacity ratio b Incremental impact for the original project obtained from Table 3-4, Year 2002 Background Plus Project Peak - Hour Levels of Service, Westfield Shoppingtown San[a Anita MaII, Site Traffc Impact and Parking Analysis for Wes~eld Shoppingtown, Santa Anita Mall Expansion, Parson Transportation Croup Inc., Apri! 26, 2000. ` Phose lA as bailt is approximately half the size (255,943 square feet) of the origanal project ~ praposed (approximately 600,000 net square feetj in !he Apri12000 traffic study. Source: Kaku Associates. 1007 The thresholds for the significance criteria established by the City of Arcadia are based on the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) methodology. Project impacts are considered significant when the following threshold is exceeded: • The increase in traffic demand generated by a proposed project equals or exceeds Z% of the intersection's capacity causing or worsening LOS E or F conditions, i.e., the project increases the background LOS to a LOS E or F operation, OR • The increase in the V/C ratio is equa] to or greater than 0.020 with the addition of project traffic, worsening an intersection already predicted to operate at LOS E or F conditions before the project traffic is added. As can be seen in the above table, the existing Levels of Service combined with the incremental impact created by Phase la traffic does not meet the thresholds for significant impact at any of the three intersections: • Intersection 1- Baldwin Avenue West & Foothill Boulevard meets neither criterion in that Phase lA did not result in an increase in V/C of 0.02 of greater nor is the intersection operating at LOS E or F. • Intersection 3- Baldwin Avenue & I-210 EB Ramps meets neither criterion in that Phase IA did not result in an increase in V/C of 0.02 of greater nor is the intersection operating at LOS E or F. • Intersection 10 - Rosemead Boulevard & Huntington Drive is currently operating at a V/C of 0.924 and LOS of E but since the incremental impact is less than 0.02 it does not meet the criteria for significant traffic impact. Citv of Arcadia Westfield Senta Ani[a ~ March 2007 Page 15 Reponses to Comments Therefore, the Addendum provides conclusive analysis showing that there is a less than significant impact at these three locations from Phase la. The analysis also demonstrates that Phase lb would also have a less than significant traffic impact at these three locations. Westfield has complied with all applicable mitigation measures required for Phase la. Even though Phase lb would not result in any significant traffic impacts, Westfield has committed to Phase 2 intersection and/or roadway improvements as part of Phase Ib in the Addendum. These are the same measures that were identified as part of the Certified EIR. It should be noted that Westfield has agreed to these improvements even though it has not yet met the 400,000 square foot threshold the City placed on Westfield's entitlement for implementation of these improvements. The Addendum is clear about the physical specifications of the improvements, the timing of the improvements, and who will be responsible for the improvements. The improvement planned for Baldwin/I-210 EB Off Ramp has received a permit from Caltrans, and Caltrans is currently reviewing plans for Baldwin West/Foothi11/I-210 WB Off Ramp. In addition, the Condition of Approval regarding Rosemead/Huntington has been satisfied. A letter from Los Angeles County Department of Public Works dated February 22, 2007 identifies the fair share contribution for the project and aclalowledges receipt of the fair shaze payment from the project applicant. The projecYs Phase la Condition of Approval has been met with the fair shaze payment and the completion of the project applicant's responsibility has been accepted by the County. COMMENT 1-13: D. The Addendum Fails to Provide a Water Supplv Studv. The Addendum is legally inadequate because, like the Certified EIR it fails to contain a Water 5upply Assessment (WSA) pursuant to Water Code § 10914(d). The hydrology analysis in the EIR and Addendum is limited soley [sic] to a discussion of drainage and does nothing to address water supply or adequately disclose water quality issues. This deficiency alone requires preparation of a subsequent EIl2 and recirculation to the public. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-13: The Addendum adequately analyzes water supply and quality issues. In accordance with Section 10912 of the Water Code (which came into effect after certification of the 2000 Certified EIR), a"projecY' that is subject to the requirements of SB 610 (regarding water supply assessments) includes shopping centers employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 squaze feet of floor area. As the proposed Phase lb improvements, which include approximately 115,000 square feet of area, would not employ more than 1,000 persons and would not exceed 500,000 square feet of floor area, the requirements of SB 610 would not apply. Nonetheless a detailed analysis of the water demand for Phase lb and how it relates to the City Ci[y of Arcadia WestTield San[a Anita March 2007 Page 16 Reponses to Comments of Arcadia's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) is included in the Addendum. This analysis is included on pages 174 tluough 183 of the Addendum as well as within Appendix D to the Addendum. As indicated therein, the Phase lb demand would represent approximately 0.27 percent of the forecasted demand for a normal water year, 0.27 percent for a single dry water year, 0.26 percent of multiple dry water year 1, 0.27 percent of multiple dry water year 2, and 0.34 percent of multiple dry water year 3. In addition, the ineremental demand from Phase lb would be well below the surplus of water supply sources identified in the UWMP. Additionally, Phase lb would not require new infrastructure such as lift stations or pipelines. The existing infrastructure would be adequate to accommodate Phase lb's water demand. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, Phase lb would not adversely affect water service. In addition, the improvements would be constructed and operated in accordance with Tifles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code regarding water conservation. The Addendum also includes a detailed analysis of water quality (refer to pages 205 through 211), which is supported by a surface water qualiTy technical report (Appendix E) that addresses compliance with NPDES requirements related to water quality and includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented to address water quality. In addition, a conceptual Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) is also included within Appendix E of the Addendum. The comment does not raise any issues warranting a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. COMMENT 1-14: E. The Air Qualitv AnalVSis is Deficient. The Certified EIR did not contain an analysis of air quality impacts related to the excavation and grading needed for a 1 1/2 level underground parking garage, let alone the export of 159,352 cubic yards of dirt from the site. The analysis of PM-10 and other emissions reported in the Addendum for this activity, including the presence of localized significant impacts is deficient. With further analysis it is likely that this impact will be a new significant impact not previously disclosed in the Certified EIR, which did not identify any PM-10 impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-14: The Addendum provides an adequate and comprehensive air quality analysis. The Certified EIR included analysis ofmulti-level parking structures. The Certified EIIZ construction analysis was 6ased on an average State-wide equipment activity level per acre of heavy City af Arcadia ~ Westfield San[a Ani[a March 2007 Page 17 Reponses to Comments commercial construction activities from off-road equipment and on-road trucks consistent with the SCAQMD recommended methodology in 2000. The Addendum includes a detailed analysis related to construction related emissions using the most recent SCAQMD recommended URBEMIS model (refer to pages 59 through 62 of the Addendum and to Appendix A). The analysis within the Addendum reflects a more refined assessment of potential impacts based on a more detailed site plan. Specifically, potential emissions from each stage of construction (demolition, grading activities, export, building erection, application of architectural coatings, and paving) were addressed and potential impacts were disclosed in the Addendum. The analysis prepared for the Addendum accounted for the worst-case day based on the needed equipment and the amount of excavation and export of soil required for the subterranean parking structure. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, construction-related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. The Addendum includes a detailed analysis of SCAQMD recently adopted PM2.5 standards and localized significance thresholds. While these new thresholds were not available for the analysis provided in the Certified EIR and no significance conclusions were provided in the Certified EIR, the analysis of air quality within the Addendum and the associated technical report within Appendix A of the Addendum includes a detailed analysis of these new significance thresholds. The analysis was conducted consistent with SCAQMD recommended methodologies. As indicated in the Addendum, the Project would not result in a significant impacY associated with PM~.; emissions or loca]ized impacts. COMMENT 1-15: F. The Noise Analvsis is Deficient. The Certified EIR did not include an analysis of SdBA increases in areas that did not exceed baseline levels and contained no construction vibration analysis. The Addendum now includes a brief vibration analysis but minimizes construction noise impacts to residential uses along Baldwin based on faulty and optimistic assumptions. These assumptions - such as that construction activities would not use the noisiest equipment continuously and would include temporary sound barriers or mufflers to reduce noise-are not incorporated as mitigation measures for the Phase lb project. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-15: The Certified EIR and Addendum provide comprehensive and adequate noise analyses for the Westfield project. The construction noise analysis provided in the Addendum for Phase lb impacts is consistent with the methodology provided in the Certified EIR and reference noise Citv o! Arcadia N'es[field Santa Anite ~ Mareh 2007 Page 18 Reponses to Comments levels included in EPA's Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB 206717, 1971. This methodology has been adopted by many municipalities including the City of Los Angeles (LA CEQA Thresholds Guide). As stated on page 91 of the Addendum, construction average (Leq) noise levels generated by construction activity would generally range from 77 to 86 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The analysis provided in the Addendum was conservatively based on the~upper end of the noise range (86 dBA). Based on the more conservative calculations and consistent with the findings of the Certified EIIZ, construction noise impacts would be less than significant and no additional mitigation measures beyond the mitigation measure set forth in the Certified EIR regarding construction hours are necessary. Contrary to what is stated in this comment, the analysis evaluated potential construction noise levels based on distance attenuation alone and did not account for any additional noise attenuation from intervening topography or project features such as noise mufflers. In addition, the calculations in the noise analysis also do not assume that construction activities would not use the noisiest equipment continuously. See Table 4-9. However, it is reasonable that typica] construction noise levels at receptor locations would be less than projected in the Addendum since the noisiest equipment would not be used continuously and not at the closest distance to the receptor for the entire construction duration. Furthermore, as stated in the Addendum, but not accounted for in any calculations, it would be expected that construction contractors for Phase ]b would also implement responsible construction management practices such as temporary sound barriers or mufflers to reduce noise impacts. COMMENT 1-16: G. New Fire and Police Impacts Are Not Addressed. The Addendum discusses the increase in Fire Department service calls that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2004 when Phase la opened. The table below summarizes the significant increase in Fire Department incidents that occurred during and after the quarter (bolded in the table below) when Phase la opened for business. The number of Fire Department incidents at the mall are reported in Appendix G to the Addendum. The Addendum discloses that the number of calls more than tripled after Phase 1 a opened. 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4` lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr QYr Qtr Qtr Qtr 03 04 04 04 04 OS OS OS OS 06 06 06 - Jul & Au 40 34 39 58 141 106 70 67 71 57 73 44 calls calls calls calls calls calls calls calls ' calls cails calls calls City of Santa Anita March 2007 Page 19 Reponses to Comments This significant increase in service call volume represents another change of circumstances or new information that demonstrates that the expansion's impacts will be significantly more severe than previously analyzed, requiring further analysis, study and mitigation through a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-16: This comment misconstrues the information presented in Appendix G of the Addendum and summarized on pages 99 through 106 of the Addendum. As discussed in detail in Appendix G, the increase in calls for Fire Deparhnent service during late 2004 and early 2005 coincide wiYh construction of Phase la, and were related primarily fo false alarms triggered by tenant improvement work. As explained in Appendix G, the fire alarm system problems have been addressed and related fire alarm calls have now normalized, therefore reducing the number of service calls as compared with the Phase la tenant improvements construction and opening period. As the data excerpt in the comment letter clearly shows, the total volume of Fire Department service calls in the latest period analyzed (i.e., 44 calls in the Third Quazter of 2006) is nearly identical to the number at the beginning of data series (i.e., 40 in 4`h Quarter of 2003). Thus, the service calls increase was a temporary phenomenon associated with Phase la, and is not applicable to Phase Ib. The comment does not consider the analysis in Appendix G, which demonstrates that the cost to the City to provide services to Westfield Santa Anita, even during the temporary increase in the volume of calls for service, pales in comparison to the tax revenue that Phase la, Phase lb and lhe center as a whole produce for the City. As presented in Appendix G, Phase la taken alone, yields about $748,000 per year for the City, or two and one-half times the estimated Fire and Police Department incremental personnel costs associated with that project phase. Phase lb will yield about $543,000 in City revenues, or nearly 12 times the incremental public safety costs associated with that phase. The combined revenues from Phases la and lb ($1.3 million) are nearly four times the incremental Fire and Police service costs for these two phases. Altogether, the entire center, through completion of Phase lb, will yield about $4.7 million per year in total tax revenue to the City. This is why the City staff recommended a mitigation measure (refer to page 106 of the Addendum) to have the City Council assess public safety resource needs on an annua] basis, and utilize some of the revenues produced by Westfield Santa Anita to pay some of the cost of any additional services that the City determines to be needed as a result of development. Based on the above and as demonstrated by the Addendum, the Phase lb improvements would not result in impacts on fire protection services that will be significantly more severe than previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required. 3an[a Anita March 2007 Page 20 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-17: Similarly, the Addendum discusses the increase in Police Department service calls that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2004 when Phase la opened. According to Appendix G, the number of "events" (individual calls for service) and "cases" (events that required a formal police report) increased dramatically after Phase la opened, as shown in the table below. Again, this new information (increased crime and police incidents at the mall) shows that the environmental impacts previously analyzed will be significantly more severe than previously thought, requiring further review through a Supplemental EIR. 4th Qtr lst Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4t6 lst Qtr 2nd 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr lst Qtr 03 04 04 04 Qtr OS Qtr OS OS 06 04 OS 496 409 419 465 863 855 727 765 813 675 events events events even events events events events events events 155 178 158 179 266 215 198 200 226 192 cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-17: As also explained in detail in Appendix G and summarized on pages 106 through 112 of the Addendum, a temporary increase in calls for Police Department services at the end of 2004 and begi~ing of 2005 were associated with new entertainment uses (i.e., the cinema and large restaurants). The very numbers cited in the comment letter show that the call for Police service volume is trending downward since Phase la was completed, except for the Fourth Quarter of 2005, which is the winter holiday shopping season. As discussed above, Phase lb will not featwe any of the entertainment uses induded in Phase la, and therefore the temporary service call increase related to the opening of Phase ] a is not applicable to Phase lb. In addition, as discussed above in Response to Comment No. 1-16, Phase lb will yield about $543,000 in City revenues, or neazly 12 times the incremental public safety costs associated with that phase. Thus, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measure on page 112 to have the City Council assess public safety resource needs on an annual basis, and utilize some of the revenues produced by Westfield Santa Anita to pay some of the cost of any additional services that the City determines to be needed as a result of cumulative development, no significant impacts to police protection would occur. Thus, a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required. City ot Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita . March 2007 Page 21 Reponses to Commenzs COMMENT 1-18: H. Impacts to Solid Waste Disposa- are Not Addressed. Citing additional capacity at the Puente Hills Landfill, the Addendum concludes that the solid waste impacts of Phase lb would be within the level analyzed in 2000 and that no significant cumulative impacts are expected. No threshold of significance nor analysis is provided to justify these conclusions. In fact, the Certified EIR reported that the General Plan had a significance criteria based on the City's failure to maintain waste diversion goals of 50% after 2000. No analysis of that standard is provided and no quantification of existing recycling activity in the City or at the mall is provided, even though that information is available. According to current County SaniYation District information, inadequate cumulative landfill capacity still remains in this area. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-18: The Addendum provides an adequate analysis of solid waste impacts. The threshold of sio ificance in the Certified EIR states: "Impacts to solid waste service are considered significant, if the City of Arcadia, because of fhe project, is unable to maintain solid waste diversion goals of 25 percent, with an increase to 50 percent, pursuant to the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element." As discussed on pages 189 through 197 of the Addendum, Phase lb would generate a very small percentage of the excess capacity at Puente Hills Landfill, the landfill that would likely receive the waste from the site. Phase lb would be designed to incorporate storage and collection recyclables and include the collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts serving the site pursuant to the mitigarion measures identified in the Certified EIR regazding the Project. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill. Furthermore, the Puente Hills MRF began operation in 2005, thus increasing solid waste disposal capacity within the County. Thus, with incorporation of the mitigation measures, the project would not impede the City of Arcadia's waste reduction goals and impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. COMMENT 1-19: For all these reasons, the Addendum is legally deficient under CEQA, and, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162, a Supplemental EIR must be prepared and circulated before the City can approve the Phase lb Mall Expansion project. The passage of seven years since the preparation of the original EIR and a variety of design changes, misrepresentations concerning project size, and other new information and changed circumstances, require that a Supplemental EIR be prepared and circulated for public comment. Westfield Santa Ani[e March 2007 Page 22 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-19: Based on the above, there is no evidence that the proposed Phase lb improvements would result in a new significant impact or an increase in an already identified significant impact. Furthermore, the addendum is very comprehensive and conservative. The Addendum is very thorough and has been completed in accordance with all applicable CEQA requirements. The Addendum is the appropriate form of documentation for the Phase Ib improvements as concluded by the City staff, PCR Services Corporation and an independent environmental consulting firm specializing in the application of CEQA. See also Response to Comment Nos .1- 1 and 1-3. COMMENT 1-20: III. GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES All new davelopment in fhe City must be consistent with the City's General Plan. (See General Plan, page 6-2.) The Mall Expansion project as currently defined in the Addendum and the Staff Report suffers from at least two major inconsistencies with the City's General Plan. First, the FAR for the Expansion project will exceed the mandatory General Plan limits for the site, and, second, the Mall Expansion design does not currently provide for a vehicular connection with the racetrack property as required. Of the two, the former is fatal for the Mall Expansion, and the latter requires, at least, that the project be resubmitted to comply with the design requirement. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-20: Refer to Response to Comment 1-2, above regarding the consistency of the Phase lb improvements with the FAR for the site set forth by the General Plan. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 1-23, below regarding the vehicular connection with the racetrack property. The comment does not raise any issues warranting re-submittal of any design plans. COMMENT 1-21: A. The Floor Area Ratio of the Mall Expansion Exceeds the Maximum Allowed Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") is a fairly straightforward concept which is improperly and inaccurately analyzed under the environmental documents and the Staff Report. The City's General Plan provides for a 0.50 FAR for the Westfield Shopping Center (General Plan, Table 2-A, page 2.12 ~). The General Plan describes FAR as "the masimum non- residential building square footage that may be permitted.° FAR is based on "building squaze City of Arcadia Wes[field Sente Ani[a March 2007 Page 23 Reponses to Comments footage." (General Plan, page 2.12, fn. l.) There is no mention in the General Plan of °Gross Leasable Area" or any other reductions in gross building square footage. The Arcadia Zoning Code provides a definition of °Gross Floor Area." The Gross Floor Area is "the total dimensions on each floor as measured from the outside wall." (Arcadia Municipal Code 9220.25.1). There is nothing in the General Plan or any approvals for the Mall Expansion which indicate that anything other than the Gross Floor Area shall be used to calculate the FAR. Despite this applicable Zoning Code definition and requirements of the General Plan, the Addendum and the Staff Report defines the project using "Gross Leasable Area" for the numerator of the FAR calculation. Of course Westfield would prefer to use a Gross Leasable Area for purposes of calculating the FAR, since it permits a considerably larger project (-- one that has not been analyzed under CEQA nor approved by the City Council--) and is not permitted by the General Plan. The Addendum and the Staff Report appear to rely upon a new definition added to the Municipal Code in 2000 which defines Gross Leasable Area as: °The total floor area designed for the tenant's occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines or upper floors - expressed in square feet and measured from the center line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. Gross leasable area shall also include kiosks within the common areas. It is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales areas." The definition included further exceptions to floor area, not applicable to this discussion. (Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9220.253). In fact, this new definition of Gross Leasable Area is applicable only to the pazking requirements in the Zoning Code and is not incorporated into any General Plan or Zoning Code definition of Floor Area Ratio. Oddly, if this is not confusing enough, the Addendum even goes on to provide another numerator for the FAR calculation - another number which is violative of the City's General Plan. The Addendum (at page 7, fn. 1) discusses the Urban Land Institute's ("ULI") definition of gross leasable area which is utilized throughout the Addendum. The ULI gross leasable azea is somewhat stricter than the Municipal Code definition, but still has no bearing on FAR under the General Plan. The General Plan is intemally inconsistent on this point, as Table 6-A limits the FAR for the Mall site to .40 (General Plan, page 6-3). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-21: As discussed in detail in Response to Comment No. 1-2, the Phase lb improvements would be well below the FAR previously approved for the site and consistent with the City's methodology of calculating FAR for the site using GLA established in 2000 with the Certified EIIZ, the General Plan Amendment and Resolutions 6198 and 6199. It was the City's intent with the 2000 Approval Documents to change the FAR for the Westfield property to 0.50. This City of Arcadie Westfield Santa Anita March 20D7 Page 24 Reponses to Comments change was accurately reflected in Table 2-A of the General Plan, but was inadvertently not changed in Table 6-A. See Table 2-A in the City's General Plan and the 2000 Approval Documents (Resolution 6198 and 6199) that show the correct FAR of 0.50 for the Westfield property. COMMENT 1-22: To continue the confusion and misrepresentation to the public and the decision makers, the Addendum omits any reference to the amount of existing floor area at the Mall site and the amount that has already been added by the earlier expansion, Phase 1 a. Because the floor area and the FAR are the prime General Plan and City of Arcadia means of limiting the maximum amount of non-residential development that occurs, this failure makes the Addendum fatally inaccurate and unusable for the Phase lb Mall Expansion. The City record, including the EIR, the Addendum and the Staff Report are hopelessly uncleaz on the FAR calculation - and thus provide no usable, consistent Project Description for purposes of CEQA. However, all available information leads to the conclusion that the FAR for the Mall Expansion project is, in fact, over the permitted .50 FAR when the project size is calculated pursuant to the General Plan and Zoning Code. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-22: Please refer to Response to Comment No. 1-2 regarding the clarity and consistency of the use and calculation of FAR by the Addendum, the City, the 2000 Approval Documents (Resolution Nos, 6198 and 6199), and the City staff report. COMMENT 1-23: B. The Proiect Presented Does Not Cantain Necessarv Connections to the Racetrack The Arcadia Genera] Plan requires a pedestrian and vehiculaz connection between the Mall and any new commercial development within the racetrack's southem parking lot. (General Plan, page 2-19; Staff Report, page 10.) At the cunent time, the Mall plans do not contain adequate connections. In correspondence to the City in November, 2006, Westfield proposed such a connection but only contingent upon certain conditions. According to the current Staff Report, your staff has found the proposed (conditional) vehiculaz connection to be inadequate and recommends a condition requiring a new design. City of Arcadia Wes[field Santa Anita March 2007 Page 25 Reponses to Comments The issue of General Plan consistency is fundamental and adequate plans addressing the General Plan design requirement must be publicly presented. As such, the Phase lb proposal continues to be inconsistent with the General Plan on the urban design requirement of connections to the racetrack. Thus the project cannot be approved without resubmitted plans or an amendment to the General Plan. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-23: The Westfield project complies with al] applicable General Plan requirements. The commentor has confused the obligation under the General Plan. Although a General Plan obligation does exist to require a connection between Westfield Santa Anita and the Racetrack south parking lot, that obligation is placed on the developer of the project on the Racetrack south parking lot and not Westfield Santa Anita (See General Plan p. 2-20-21). As discussed on pages 81 and 82 of the Addendum and within the City Staff Report, the Phase lb improvements are consistent with the General Plan. Notwithstanding Westfield has agreed to pedestrian and vehicular connections between the two properties as requested by the City. The agreement to provide the connections is subject to the development of the proposed retail mall project on the Racetrack south parking lot as described in the Final EIR for the Shops at Santa Anita ("SASA ProjecY'). COMMENT 1-24: IV. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons the City is compelled to deny the Mall Expansion at this time and to require a Supplemental EIR to study all current potential impacts, circulate the new CEQA document for public review, and provide accurate and complete information to both the public and the decision-makers. Only after such compliance with CEQA and the City's own General Plan can the Mall Expansion project proceed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-24: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-1, even though the Phase lb improvements are well within the envelope of development evaluated in the Certified EIR, a thorough analysis of Phase lb has been included again in the Addendum. In addition, as discussed in Response to City of Arcadia Wes[field Santa Anita - March 2007 Page 26 Reponses m Comments Comment No 1-3, the Addendum demonstrates that no new significant impacts or a substantial increase in already identified significant impacts would result from the Phase lb improvements. Thus, a Supplemental EIR is not required under CEQA as concurred by the City of Arcadia, a law firm working for the City and a second environmental consulting firm specializing in CEQA. The evidence in the record clearly supports the use of an Addendum for the Phase lb project. CARUSO LETTER: Rick Moses Caruso Affiliafed 101 The Grove Drive Los Angeles, CA 90036 COMMENT 1-25: Comment Nos. 1-25 through ]-76 make up the letter referenced in Comment No. 1-3 above. Rick Moses Caruso Affiliated ] Ol The Grove Drive Los Angeles, CA 90036 We undersfand that in the near future Westfield may be re-submitting its applications for further development and expansion of the Santa Anita Shoppingtown mall, formerly known as the Fashion Park mall. Based on our review of prior Westfield analyses and approvals, we have significant concerns about the entitlement process and environrnental review that Westfield will be requesting for such development and expansion. We know very little about Westfield's overall expansion plans (because those plans have not been made public) but Westfield has confirmed to the City of Arcadia its intent to establish a large discount merchandise store (believed to be a Target store) in the former Robinsons May department store building or on its site. In addition to this discount store conversion, we believe that Westfield proposes to add approximately 180,000 square feet of gross building area in an open-air mall situated atop a new parking structure, the majority of which would be subterranean. Due to the sloping topography at fhe location of fhe expansion, a portion of the pazking structure would be above grade (a part of one level), with the majority of the parking structure (a,portion of the first level and all of the second and third levels) below grade. This expansion would be located in the southwesterly portion of the Westfield property, in the lower and upper portions of the parking lot that is bounded by Macy's and the mall building on the east, Nordstrom's on the north and surface pazking to the west and south. City af Arcatlia K'estfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 27 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-25: This comment letter was submitted to the City of Arcadia during the time that Westfield was working with the City regarding the design for the project and during the same time that the City was preparing the Addendum. Thus, this comment letter was submitted wi[hout an understanding of the project or the contents of the Addendum. The City considered the comments set forth in this letter in the preparation of the Addendum. While a full and complete Project description is included in the Addendum at pages 13-20, it should be clarified that the Phase lb improvements include approximately 115,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA using the LTLI definition), not 180,000 square feet as indicated by the comment. Using the City of Arcadia definition, Phase lb proposes 100,800 square feet of GLA. The Phase lb improvements also include two levels of parking below the retail uses, not three levels as stated by the comment. The commentor is correct with reeard to the general location of the Phase lb improvements. Plans to convert the Robinsons May building aze not under consideration by the City at this time. COMMENT 1-26: Along with the Santa Anita Companies, our company has a concern about the introduction of a large discount merchandise store into what is supposed to be a high quality regional shopping center with department stores, and the adverse effects that would be generated by such a department store conversion related to the increased parking demands, traffic and related impacts (discussed below). We also have a strong interest in ensuring the quality operation and mitigation by Westfield of any further development and that Westfield account for the development on its site that has already occurred, including Ihe fulfillment of conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and promises made when it received its prior approvals. We believe that many residents and businesses share our interest in having Westfield's expansion plans be open to full public scrutiny so that it can be held responsible for mitigating the impacts that new discount center and further shopping center development will cause. To accomplish this, we would ask the City to exercise the same detailed scrutiny and assessment of Westfield's proposed department store conversion and expansion analyses and plans that it has undertaken for our proposed Specific Plan development. Based on our understanding of Westfield's proposed discount store and other mall development plans, as set forth above, we have set forth below the entitlement and environmental actions, analyses, studies and findings that the City ofArcadia should require as it assesses Westfield's new projects. City otArcedia W¢stfield San[a Anita - March 2007 Page 28 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-26: Plans to convert the Robinsons May building are not under consideration by the City at this time. In addition, as discussed in more detail below, Westfield has met its obligations regarding mitigation measures associated with pnor approvals. The proposed Phase Ib improvements are entirely within the development envelope analyzed within the Certified EIR and are entirely consistent with the various discretionary actions for the project site that were approved along with the Certified EIR in 2000. The processes for the Certified EIR and the various discretionary actions were open to full public scrutiny as required by CEQA. Nonetheless, even though the Phase ]b improvements are well within the envelope of development evaluated in the Certified ELR, a thorough analysis of Phase 1 b has been included again in the Addendum. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-3, the Addendum was also subject to a peer review process by an independent third-party CEQA expert that validated the conclusions in the Addendum, including the fact that a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR was not required for the Phase lb project. In addition, the Architectural Design Review process that is required for the Phase lb improvements is a public process that provides for additional public comment and input. COMMENT 1-27: 1. ENTITLEMENT APPROVALS I. General Plan Amendment. Westfield needs a General Plan amendment for any additional mall development. On September 5, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6198, in Case Na GP 99-001, which approved a General Plan amendment that Westfield had sought "to change the General Plan Land Use designation in the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.40 to 0.50 for the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita." Although the City Council amended Table 2-A of the General Plan (see Page 2.12) for the mall to permit a"Q.50 FAR, including the Westfield Shopping Center," it did not, however, amend the Implementation and Monitoring section of the General Plan (in Chapter 6) for the Westfield mall, on Page 6-2, which contains Table 6-A whose provisions continue to limit the maximum intensity of development on the mall site to a 0.40 FAR, whether it's a new use or an expansion. Table 6-A of the City's General Plan, on Page 6-2 currently read as follows: All development projects will be reviewed to determine whether proposed land uses are consistent with the site's General Plan Land Use designation. An initial determination can made by comparing the proposed land use with the specific location on the General Plan Land Use Map. Development projects whether new or expansions to existing uses , are permitted by the development intensiry of their sites indicated on the General Plan Land Use Map as listed below. Development intensities outlined in the General Plan Land Use Element may be permitted only if the proposed project is consistent with all relevant policies, review criteria, and approach Ci[y of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 29 to Comments contained in the General Plan and all relevant standards contained in the Development Review Program. [Emphasis Added] Table 6-A - General Plan Designations Designation Description Average Max.Intensit}~ Population In[ensity Commercial Commercial Provides appropriately located N/A 0.30 FAR for (C) areas for the general commercial the southerly and professional office needs of race [rack the area residents, workers and parking lot, 0.40 visitors. Appropriate uses FAR jor tRe include a range of common retail Foshion Park and personal service uses, m~ll and 0.50 specialty retail, offices, auto FAR for other relaled uses, financial properties institutions, and hocels and [Emphasis motels. Added] In Resolution No. 6198, the City Council found, in Section 1, tHat the 0.40 FAR General Plan designation would only permit an "additional 300,000+ sq. ft." on the Westfield mall site. This number was incorrect. According to the General Plan (see Page 2.12), FAR "is measured by dividing building square footage by net lot area existing prior to development." Given the Westfield mall site's 80.63 acres, the maximum nonresidential building square footage that could be developed at a 0.40 FAR was and is 1,404,896 square feet (80.63 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 3,512,242 sq. fr.; 3,512,242 sq. ft. x 0.40 FAR = 1,404,896 sq. ft.) According to Table 2-2 in the Final EIR certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000, the gross building area that existed on the mall site in 2000 was 1,197,100 sq. ft., which resulted in an FAR of 034 (1,197,100 sq. ft. = 3,512,242 sq. ft. = 0.34 FAR). In August 2001 and in March 2002, the City Council approved, respectively, Resolution Nos. 6245 and 6289 for a 276,000 square foot expansion to the mall which would increase the gross floor area to 1,473,100 square feet (1,197,100 sq. ft. + 276,000 sq. ft. = 1,473,100 sq. fr,) which results in an FAR for the mall of approximately 0.42 (1,473,100 sq. fr. = 3,512,242 sq. ft. = 0.419 FAR). Consequently, since the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan provisions quoted above has already been exceeded, any further development or expansion of the Westfield mall would also exceed the maximum intensity permitted by Chapter 6 of the General Plan and would require a General Plan amendment. City of Arcadia Westfield Sante Anf[a March 2007 Page 30 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-27: Please refer to Response to Comment No. 1-2 regarding the clarity and consistency of the use and calculation of FAR by the Addendum, the City and the 2000 Approval Documents (Resolution Nos. 6198 and 6199). In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-2, the Phase ib improvements are consistent with the General Plan. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-21, it was the City's intent with the 2~00 Approva] Documents to change the FAR far the Westfield property to 0.50 based on GLA. This change was accurately reflected in Table 2-A of the General Plan, but was inadvertently not changed in Table 6-A. See Table 2-A in the City's General Plan and the City Approva] Documents from 2000 (Resolution 6198_ and 6199) that show the correct FAR of 0.50 for the Westfield property COMMENT 1-28: 2. Zone Chanae. Westfield's plan to re-develop or convert the existing Robinsons May department store building or site.into some kind of discount merchandise store would significantly change the nature and character of the mall from that which the existing zoning permits and would therefore require a zone change. A zone change would be required for such because the terms of City Council Resolution No. 6199 limit the use of the mall property to the continued development and use "only for a high quality regional s6opping center with department stores, together with supplementary specialty shops and facilities including restaurants, multi-plex theater(s), a food market or markets and not more t6an two (2) automobile convenience centers." A discount store would not attract clientele that would contribute to the definition of a regional shopping center as "high quality." The type of merchandise sold by a discounter does not compare to the type of inerchandise typically sold by department stores. A discount retail store usually has stand-alone qualities compared to other shopping center stores so that customers who would shop at such a store might not ordinarily shop during the same trip at a fine jeweler or a high-end clothing store, such as Nordstrom, thereby changing previous environmental analyses and assumptions. Shopping for dog food, automotive supplies and boxed wine does not contribute to a high quality regional shopping center and would generate significantly more traffic because very few trips would be shared between a discount store and the other shopping center stores. Many of the discount store shoppers would not shop at the other mall stores. Since a discount store would not be permitted under the zoning established by ordinance No. 2136 and Resolution No. 6199, a zone change in the form of an amendment to Resolution No. 6199 would be required for any such use. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-28: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. City ot Arcadie . Wes[field Sanla Anita March 2007 Page 31 Reponses to Commen[s COMMENT 1-29: 3. Preliminarv Plan Approval. Resolution No. 6199 requires all preliminary site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs for any development on the mall property to be submitted to the Development Services Department and subjected to desigi review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council following a public hearing. Westfield's plans for conversion of a depar[ment store to a discount store must be subjected to such discre[ionary review and approval. RESPONSE TO COMMENT ]-29: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant.. Preliminary plan review for Phase 16 has been completed. All Phase 16 plans have been submitted to the Development Services Department for preliminary review. The preliminary review is a processing step prior to design review and not a separate approval. The design review element of this requirement is addressed below, in Response to Comment No. 1-30. COMMENT 1-30: 4. Architectural Design Review. The zoning of the mal] property requires an Architectural Design Review for any new development. Any conversion of a department store into a discount store that involves issuance of a building permit, as well as exterior alterations, would have to go through Architectural Design Review under AMC Section 9295.1. Because the project would involve a building in excess of 40,000 square feet, it is subject to design review by the Planning Commission. See AMC Section 9295.7(C). Additionally, the mall's classification within the D zone also requires compliance with applicable design regulations. See AMC Section 9272.2.1. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-30: As discussed above in Response to Comment No. 1-29, all applicable plans will be subject to Architectural Design Review pursuant to the 2000 Approval Documents. It should be noted that Westfield Santa Anita is not subject to design review pursuant to AMC sections 9295.1 or 9272.2.1, and is instead subject to design review pursuant to Resolution 6199. COMMENT 1-31: 5. Parkina Modification or Variance. Since a discount store would not be a high quality shopping center use, the pazking requirements of the AMC for "Other Permitted Uses" W'estfield San[a Ani[e March 2007 Page 32 Reponses to Comments would apply, which specify a parking requirement of five spaces per 1,000 squaze feet of gross floor area. See AMC Section 9269.5. A parking study would be necessary. If Westfield could not provide an adequate number of parking spaces per Code, it would need to file a modification permit or variance relating to required pazking. In order to justify a modification from Code standards, findings would need to be made. See AMC Section 9292.1.4(I 1). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-31: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant. COMMENT 1-32: II ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES 6. Subsequent Environmental Impact Reqort. Each of the foregoing discretionary approvals requires the City to conduct an environmental review of the potentially significant impacts that would result from any new mall development (including a conversion from department store to discount store) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-32: The City has conducted environmental review (Addendum) for the Phase lb project. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-1 and 1-3 regarding the appropriateness of the Addendum for the Phase lb improvements. COMMENT 1-33: We understand that Westfield has proposed that this review be conducted through an Addendum to its 6-year old Program EIR that was certified on September 5, 2000 in order to avoid public review and comment. However, an Addendum would not be appropriate under CEQA given the changes to the project analyzed in Westfield's 2000 Program EIR, the changed circumstances that now exist, the new information that has come to light, and the avoidance of public scrutiny. A new EIR would be required to address the following issues: RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-33: Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-1 and I-3 regarding the appropriateness of the Addendum for the Phase lb improvements. Sante Anita Mazch 2007 Page 33 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-34: (a) Project Description. Table 2.2 of the EIR indicates that Westfield proposed to change the permitted FAR of the mall from 0.40 to 0.50. When the EIR was certified, the existing gross building area (GBA) of the mall was 1,197,100 square feet, and the GLA was 922,451 square feet. The EIR analyzed the addition of a GBA of 690,000 square feet and a GLA of 600,000 square feet. Of the square footages, 534,750 GBA sf and 465,000 GLA sf were devoted to retail shops and anchor stores, 126,500 GBA sf and 110,000 GLA sf devoted to the theaters, 23,000 GBA sf and 20,000 GLA devoted to freestanding restaurants/retail and 5,750 GBA sf and 5,000 GLA sf devoted to the mall food court. Despite this table, the EIR and its analyses obfuscated the size of the project by often referring to the project's GLA numbers instead of the FAR numbers required by the General Plan. As noted above, a 0.40 FAR would allow 1,404,896 square feet of GBA and a 0.50 FAR would allow a maacimum of 1,756,121 square feet of GBA, but the 2000 EIR's project description indicates that the proposed project will total 1,887,100 square feet; which would be inconsistent with the General plan (and would be more than even the maximum entitlement for the property designated in Table 2-A of the General Plan). It is also not clear within Area 2 in Exhibit 2-5 of the previous EIR which depicts the location of the "Westside Expansion Area." If the expansion occurs outside the boundary of this area, then this was not fully analyzed in the previous EIR, and there would be potentially significant new aesthetics, air quality, geological and noise impacts. Moving the project outside this area represents a change that was not previously analyzed and may create potentially significant environmental effects with regard to land use, geology, noise and air, as the mall would be moving closer to residences to the west. Additionally, changing the boundaries of the Westside Expansion Area may involve height and massing impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-34: Please refer to Response to Comment No. 1-2 regarding the clarity and consistency of the use and calculation of GLA by the Addendum, the City and the 2000 Approval Documents (Resolution No., 6198 and 6199). In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 1-2 and 1-3, the Phase lb improvements are entirely consistent with the General Plan and entirely within the Building Areas approved in 2000. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 1-1 regazding the comprehensiveness of the Addendum and its compliance with CEQA. COMMENT 1-35: It is also clear that Westfield cannot segment or sever the Robinsons May/discount store conversion from its other mall expansion plans, since both development projects would need to have their environmental impacts analyzed in one environmental review document. While the conversion to a discount retail store may not create any additional floor area, it would be a more intensive use of the land with more traffic, and as a result, more parking, air quality and noise problems. A discount retai] store would have many more customers (and possibly workers) than City of Arcedia Westfield Santn Anita March 2007 Page 34 Reponses to Comments a department store, and this would create new environmental impacts. Parking required for a discount store would be higher than current Code requirements and higher than the pazking threshold analyzed in the 2000 Westfield EIR. The environmental analysis for the mall expansion, including traffic and pazking analyses, would need to indude an analysis of the discount retail store conversion. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-35: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant. COMMENT 1-36: The prior EIR did not discuss any modifications or changes to the existing mall or stores such as a conversion of a 165,000 square foot department store into a discount retailer/superstore and was entirely silent on modifications to its existing mall structure. The changes to the Robinsons May store would involve more than just interior or exterior alterations such as interior partitions, plum6ing, and electrical _conveyances. It is likely that massive remodeling and reconstruction would be necessary to accommodate a discount retail store since such stores typically have a limited number of floor plans. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-36: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant. COMMENT 1-37: (b) Phasing and Build Out Year. The EiR states that "no development phasing plan has been submitted; however, the applicant has indicated that this project could be completed in its entirety within two years after project approval,° See EIR page 2-12. The EIR does in fact utilize a phasing plan. For example, Traffic Mitigation Measure 2 states that Phase 1 consists of "up to 400,000 square feet GLA" and Traffic Mitigation Measure 3 states Phase 2 consists of "up to 600,000 square feet of GLA." See EIR page 4-131. Further, environmental impacts are analyzed at various years, including 2002 (air, noise, traffic), 2015 (traffic, sewer service), 2020 (noise), and some sections of the EIR do not reveal the build out year (public services, electrical service, gas service, water service, and solid waste disposal). The build out year for the project must be consistent and all of the impacts reanalyaed if only for this one reason. Clearly, the project was not completed by 2002, as was contemplated in the project description, and the change to a different build out yeaz represents a significant change that may create new Ci[v ot Arcadfa Weatfield Santa Anita ' March 2007 Page 35 Reponses to Commen~ significant impacts. For example, the EIR states that "although fina] buildout and occupancy of the entire 600,000 square feet expansion may not occur until beyond 2002, this yeaz was used as a worst-case assumption." See EIR page 4-30. It is not clear why 2002 was chosen as a worst- case assumption when the EIR clearly contemplated at least two phases of development. Environmental conditions often worsen with time, as is apparent with increased traffic congestion, and using a 2002 build out year could underestimate worst-case impacts for subsequentphase(s) ofthe expansion. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-37: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-11, the Certified EIR consistently uses a buildout year of 2002 to address impacts of the project In addition, for some issue areas, such as traffic and noise, analysis in future years was provided in the Certified EIR to conservatively present fhe ]ong-term cumulative impacts of the project together with future development. As discussed in Response to Comment No. I-12, the project description in the Certified EIR states that the project "could" be completed within two years after approval [emphasis added]. The statement that the project could be completed within two years does no[ require that the project, in fact, be completed within two years. The phased approach used by Westfield has been consistent with the analysis in the Certified EIR, and is also consistent with City understanding of the project. This also generally results in a conservative analysis that shows the impac[s of the proposed project in a compressed period of time. The potential for phasing as indicated by the phased traffic conditions requested by the City does not change this analysis. Furthermore, the Addendum, which includes an analysis of potential Phase ib impacts for all of the environmental issue areas covered under CEQA, demonstrates that the change in the buildout year for Phase ]b does not result in any new significant impacts or an increase in any already identified significant impacts. COMMENT ]-38: (c) Scoped Out finvironmenta] Issues. The EIR did not examine cultural resources, hazazds and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, recreation, or biological resources. Of these topics, there may be potentially significant environmental impacts related to Westfield's development plans as follows: RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-38: The Initial Study prepared, appended to, and incorporated within the Certified 2000 E1R, pursuant to CEQA, demonstrates that no impacts would result with regard to these issue areas (cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing recreation, and biological resources); analysis of these issues in the main body of City of Arcadia N'estfield Santa Aniro March 2007 Page 36 Reponses to Comments the Final EIR was therefore not required. Regazdless, each of these issue areas has been addressed in the Addendum, which demonstrates that a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact would not occur with regazd to any of these environmental topics. COMMENT 1-39: (i) Cultural Resources. The project site was once a part of the Santa Anita Park, and the expansion site may have also once been the location of barracks during World War II as a Japanese Assembly Center and it is believed that the prehistoric Gabrielino village of 'Aluupkenga' was located near the mall. Yet, there has been no analysis of these issues in the EIIt and it is not clear whether the project would comply with recent state law regarding Indian sites. Further, there has been no analysis of whether the project would disturb any human remains. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-39: Please refer to Response to Comment 1-38. As indicated in that comment, the Initial Study appended to the Certified EIR addresses cultural resource issues, and demonstrates that no significant impacts to cultural resources would result from the project. In addition, the Addendum also shows that there are no cultural resources within the Westfield Santa Anita Project site (refer to page 201). Records of the construction of the Santa Anita Fashion Pazk Mall indicate that the site was completely excavated in the 1970s upon the building of the Fashion Pazk, and no historical or azchaeological artifacts are known to have been found. The entire property is developed buildings, surface parking and ]andscaping. In addition, while a portion of the Westfield Santa Anita site may have included temporary structures used for the Santa Anita Assembly Center during World War II, any such structures were completely removed shoRly afrer the end of the war. COMMENT 1-40: (ii) Hazazds and Hazardous Materials. A records review performed in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase I") for the adjacent Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR indicates that several unmapped locations at the mall may have contributed to a release of hazardous substances or petroleum hydrocarbons to the soil and/or groundwater at or near the general vicinity of the mall. At 231 Fashion Park, Santa Anita Fashion Park, 1X Anita Association - a California Limited Partnership, Hahn Property Management Corporation, and Goodyear Auto Service aze listed as unmapped sites under the American Society for Testing Materials ("ATSM") standard for the regulatory agency databases. These faci]ities are listed in the HAZNET database (a database extracted from the copies of hazazdous waste manifests received each yeaz by the Califomia Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"). The previous EIR does not reveal whether there has been any analysis of hazazds and hazazdous of Arcadie Westfield Sanle Ani~a March 2007 Page 37 Reponses to Commen~ materials. There is no disclosure of whether the project is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on the Phase 1 performed for the Santa Anita Pazk Specific Plan, the mall is listed on the HAZNET database, and it is our understanding that the HAZNET database includes hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, the expansion could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and the previous EIR did not analyze these or any related issues. There has been no analysis of whether the project would emit hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and other sensitive receptors, including senior condominiums and a convalescent home, are all within one-quarter mile of the project site. Further, the previous EIR did not analyze whether the project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, an important consideration given its proximity to the City's fire station. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-40: The commentor does not provide any evidence of the HAZNET database listing. In addition, a current search of ENVIROSTAR, an online hazardous substances database, does not list the Westfield site as a hazardous substances site. The technical studies prepared as part of the 2000 Certified EIR and the Addendum for the' Westfield site conclude that there are not hazardous substances at issue, and that Phases lb and 2 of the Westfield Expansion Project would result in a]ess than significant hazardous materials impact. In addition, the Initial Study appended to the Certified EIR identified no impact on the environment for this category. COMMENT ]-41: (iii) Hydrolo¢v and. Water Qualitv. The previous EIR had minimal amounts of analysis and disclosure regarding hydrology and water quality and included a short section on Water Service in the Utilities section. The previous EIR used a significance threshold from the City's General Plan EIl2 that states that the effects of a proposed project on water supply are considered to be significant if they will result in the depletion of groundwater supplies beyond the "safe yield" designated by the Main San Gabriel Water Master or adjudicated limits within the Raymond Basin. The CEQA Guidelines in Appendix G have a number of thresholds that were simply not analyzed to any degree in the previous EIR. The previous EIIZ did not perform a water supply assessment ("WSA") or provide a water verification letter for the 600,000 square foot expansion. A WSA is required for "... a project for which a notice of preparation is submitted on or after Januazy 1, 1996." See Water Code Section 10914(d). A WSA would be required to analyze the water supply for the proposed expansion since (1) the notice of preparation was submitted after January l, 1996 and (2) there was no WSA conducted for the approval of 600,000 square foot expansion Westfield's proposed development would require a WSA since it is part of the same 600,000 expansion for which there has not yet been a required W SA. Arcadie Westfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 38 Reponses to Commena RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-41: Refer to Response to Comment No. ]-13 regarding the water supply and water qualiry analyses included in the Addendum. COMMENT 1-42: (iv) P~o ulation and HousinQ. While the previous EIR does not have sepazate sections on population and housing, the land use consistency analysis does review SCAG forecasts for population. The SCAG forecasts utilized in the previous EIR analyzed impacts at a regional level and a local level. The subregional level was based on the San Gabrie] Valley Council of Govemments Subregional Forecasts, and the local forecasts were based on the SCAG projections for the City of Arcadia. Nevertheless, there is no analysis regazding the project's impacts on population and housing based on the CEQA Guidelines' thresholds relating to population and housing. As such, the expansion's impacts have not been adequately analyzed and the cumulative impacts have not been adequately analyzed either. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-42: See Response to Comments No. 38. The Initial Study appended to and incorporated within the Final EIR demonstrates that no impacts would result with regard to population and housing; analysis of these issues within the main body of the Final EIR was therefore not required. In addition, the Addendum also evaluates these impacts and shows that no impacts associated with direct residential population growth or displacement of housing would occur as part of the Phase lb improvements. In addition, as discussed in the Addendum, the estimated 150 fui]-time and 150 part-time employees associated with Phase lb would be within the employment projections set forth by SCAG for the City of Arcadia and the region as a whole. COMMENT 1-43: (v) Recreation. There was no analysis on whether the project would 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, or whether the project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-43: See Response to Comment No. I-38. The Initial Study appended to the Certified EIR identified no impact on the environment for this category. Furthermore, as discussed in the Addendum, residential uses would not be removed or proposed as part of the Phase Ib improvements. Thus, the Phase lb improvements would not result in direct impacts on recreational facilities. In addition, it is expected that the majority of the additional employment opportunities would be filled by persons who already live within close proximity to the site. City of Arcndie Westfield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 39 Reponses to Comments Thus, any use of recreational facilities by employees that may relocate to the area as a result of eaining employment on-site would be limited. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects of such new employees on recreation would be less than significant. COMMENT 1-44: (vi) Biological Resources. While the expansion would occur in the mal] parking lot, the EIl2 does not describe the biological resources that are present there, including whether there are any plants, hedges, trees or other forms of ]andscaping. In particular, migratory avian species may live or nest wifhin the project site. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-44: See Response to Comment No. 1-38. The Initial 3tudy for the Certified EIR identified no impact on the environment for biological resources. The Addendum to the Certified EIR also includes an update to the impacts of the proposed project to Biological Resources, noting that the fully developed shopping center site contains only omamental and landscaping vegetation, and noting that animals likely to occur on site are urban-adapted terrestrial and avian species. There would be a less than significant biological resources impact from the Phase 16 project. COMMENT 1-45: (d) Aesthetics. The previous EIR had little to no analysis regarding aesthetics, including height, design and massing. As a result, any subsequent project at the mall would represent substantial change in that the previous EIR merely proposed an envelope of development, and the City would need to analyze the height, aesthetics and massing which would require major additions of the previous EIR potentially significant effects relating to aesthetics, light and glare. The previous EIR concludes that "although architectural drawings showing the proposed building design and heights have not been submitted, the proposed project is not expected to significantly change the visual chazacter of the site." See EIR page 4-8. This was a premature conclusion since the architectural detailing was not known at the time the EIR was approved. Without receiving drawings and renderings that would indicate the azchitectural design and appearance of the expansion, the visual impact of the expansion could be potentially significant as there may be a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Analysis of the current mall expansion plan needs to occur to determine whether there would be a potentially significant change in the visual character of the site. Additionally, the previous EIR states that "the area of greatest concem would be views of the site from the existing multiple family residences located along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive." See EIR page 4-9. However, the EIR states that "the potential expansion of the mall or major department stores to the west would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts." See EIR, page 4-9. This bald assertion lacks support since the elevation of the Santa Ani[a March 2007 Page 40 to Cortunents expansion area is at least fifteen feet higher than the elevation of the adjacent Nordstrom's. As a result, the expansion would be highly visible and potentially more visible from "the area of greatest concem." There must be substantive analysis in the environmental review document of this issue as the project may substantially degrade the existing visual chazacter or quality of the site and its sunoundings. Regarding light and glare, the EIR minimally analyzes the impacts of light and glaze stating that "... very little additional lighting will be associated with the proposed expansion." See EIR page 4-15. As the "area of greatest concem" is adjacent to the proposed expansion of the mall, there has been no analysis of the increase in headlights coming in and out of driveways, increased security ]ighting, or increased building illumination; all these increased lighting sources would come closer to existing sensitive uses, yet there has been no analysis as to the impacts on sensitive uses. The lighting may create a significant impact that may substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. ln fact, the homeowners across the street have indicated that such a significant impact has already occurred. This would represent a potentially new significant impact created as a result of the project requiring a subsequent EIR to analyze and mitigate light and glare impacts. Regarding cumulative impacts, the EIR states that "no significant impacts to the aesthetic character of the project area or to existing visual resources is anticipated from project implementation." See EIR page 4-15. This conclusion cannot be reached since the E1R did not analyze any architectural drawings or plans. Further, there was no discussion regarding the azchitectural compatibility between the proposed expansion and the existing and surrounding uses. The EIR presents a mostly deferred aesthetics analysis of this issue that is not appropriate now considering that there could be pofentially significant aesthetic impacts related to the expansion. Addiiionally, the mitigation measures that the EIR proposes do not give any indication as to how they mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts. For example, requiring that the Development Services Department review and approve the project's landscape plans prior to issuance of building permits does not indicate how significant impacts would be mitigated. Further, requiring that all site plans and azchitectural building elevations be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's Architectural Design Review process does not mitigate aesthetic impacts. See EIR page 4-17. Additionally, there is nothing in the mitigation measures restricting the height or brightness of lights, or the protection of the views of the San Gabriel Mountains. With the expansion, potentially significant impacts relating to degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings may occur, and these would need to be analyzed since the height, design, massing, location, impact on the San Gabriel Mountains, light and glare may create significant impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-45: The Certified EIR includes specific analyses regarding aesthetics, views and light and glare. Specifically, Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Certified EIR begins with a description of the topography of the site and vicinity, existing uses within and sunounding the project site, elevations of the project site and vicinity, the distance of the project site from existing sensitive uses, and existing light and glare conditions. Photographs and other graphics are provided to Wes[field Senta Anite March 2007 Page 41 to Comments support the description of existing conditions in the vicinity of the site. Section 4.1 then provides an evaluation of aesthetic impacts based on the maximum height of the buildings as wel] as the location of proposed expansion areas dearly identified in Figure 2-5 of page 2-11 of the Project Description. A viewshed analysis is then provided that shows views of the site from key locations (refer to exhibits 4-6 through 4-10 of the Certified EIR). The analysis demonstrates fhat the project would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts or significant impacts to views of resources such as the Santa Anita Racetrack Grandstands. In addition, based on [he locations of future buildings, existing topography and landscaping and the wide roadways that surround the site the analysis of light and glare analysis appropriately concludes that significant light and glare impacts would not occur. Furthermore, Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Addendum includes an updated analysis of potentia] aesthetics, views and light and glare impacts associated with the Phase lb improvements. With regard to aesthetics, the Phase ]b improvements would be constructed adjoining the southwest quadrant of the existing site and would be integrated with existing shopping center structures, including the existing Nordstrom building to the north and the Macy's building to the east. Specifically, the retail uses would be located above two levels of parking and both parking levels would generally appear below grade as they would be integrated into the topography of the site and beneath the new retail buildings. In addition, heights of the new Phase lb retai] 6uildings would be approximately 25 feet with certain architectural features up to approximately 50 feet above finished floor. The tallest Phase lb improvements would be more [han 30 feet lower in elevation than the existing Center Court skylight, which has the highest elevation on-site at approximately 563 amsl or a height of approximately 83 feet above the finished floor. Refer also to Response to Comment No. l-3 regarding the Project's compliance with the building standards and areas approved in 2000. The Project is also consistent with the design guidelines, established for this property by the City in 2000 (Resolution 6199). With regazd to views, views of the proposed Phase lb retail buildings would be generally obstructed from Baldwin Avenue and adjoining residences due to the elevation differential and existing six- to eight-foot-high landscaped berm. The primary gaps to this effective visual barrier would exist at the driveway opening of Driveway C, located direcUy west of the Phase lb retail improvements. As seen from West Huntington Drive and adjoining residences to the south, the Phase ]b retail improvements would be visible through the intermittent trees that line the Project site's southem boundary. However, as discussed above, the elevations of Phase lb structures would be consistent with and lower than the elevations of the existing shopping center structures. In addition, views of the proposed parking uses would be quite limited. As the elevations of Phase lb structures would be consistent with the existing shopping center, long- range views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would continue to be available from West Huntington Drive. Additionally, no impacts to views of the Santa Anita Racetrack Grandstands would occur since Phase lb would not be located within its view corridor. Thus, no significant impact associated with aesthetics or views would result due to development of Phase lb. Citv of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anim ' March 2007 Page 42 Reponses to Comments In addition, as discussed in the Addendum, with regard to light and glare, Phase lb would comply with the design guidelines established for the site as part of Resolution No. 6199. Such design guidelines, which would be implemented as project design features, 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. Furthermoce, existing landscaping and the six- to eight-foot-high berm along Baldwin Avenue would screen lighting generated by Phase lb from residential uses across Baldwin Avenue. In addition, such lighting would be masked by existing vehicular traffic and street lighting on Baldwin Avenue. With regard to lighting from outdoor uses, the new buildings within Phase lb would be oriented around a central open space area, much of which would be surrounded on all sides by proposed buildings. Overall, the Phase lb improvements would not create light spill that would exceed the City threshold of 0.1 foot candles onto residential uses. Finally, building materials proposed as part of Phase lb, including materials within the central outdoor azea of the Project, would consist of stone, stucco and other materials that are not highly reflective. Thus, light and glare impacts associated with Phase lb would also be less than significant. The comment does not raise any issues warranting a Supplemental or Subsequent EIIt. COMMENT 1-46: (e) Air Qualitk The previous EIR analyzed above-ground multi-level parking structures, but there is nothing in the previous EIR regarding subtenanean parking structures. See EIR page 2-8. An underground parking structure presents a substantial change which would require major additions to the previous EIR. Potentially new significant effects, such as geological and air quality impacts may be much more significant because of the substantial increase in grading involved. These project changes would create significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in [he EIR, and there would likely be a need for new mitigation measures that were not present in the prior EIR. For example, the amount of grading necessary for the new subterranean parking garage would create potentially new significant environmental impacts that would require mitigation far construction air, construction noise and geological impacts, For project construction, the EIR did not indicate that there would be any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. To the contrary, the construction of any mall expansion would create a new significant impact that was not previously analyzed in the EIlt. The air quality analysis assumed that the construction area would be limited to only four (4) acres on a peak disturbance day. See E1R page 4-28. The EIR does not give support for the assumption that soil disturbance activities would be limited to only four (4) acres. Even assuming that the expansion would occur in the westerly section of the mall property, construction may be necessazy over a larger area. As a result, the PM-10 and other air quality impacts may be more severe and may cause the project to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As the project proposes a substantial change with the introduction of a subterranean parking garage, there will be more grading than that analyzed in the EIR. More grading will result in more PM-10, NOx and CO City of Arcadie µ'estlield Santa Aniw March 2007 Page 43 Reponses to Commen[s that may create potentially significant environmenta] effects. Because of the change in the project, there may be a potentially significant conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, such as PM-] 0, for which the project region is in non-attainment the change in project may cause the construction related emissions thresholds to be exceeded. It is almost impossible to have a significant project in Southem California without significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-46: The Final EIR included analysis of multi-level parking structures. The City has required as a part of the Addendum ,updated analyses related to subtenanean parking structures, including the potential change in air quality impacts. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-14, Section 4.2 of the Addendum, Air Quality, includes a detailed analysis related to construction related emissions using the most recent SCAQMD recommended URBEMIS model. Potential emissions from each stage of construction (demolition, grading activities, export, building erection, application of architectural coatings, and paving) were addressed and potential impacts were disclosed in the Addendum. Soil disturbance activities were reduced from five acres per day in the Certified EIR to four acres per day in the Addendum based on the type of grading activities required for the Promenade. Site grading for a subterranean parking structure would inherently disturb a smaller area than for an above ground structure. This is primarily a function of the t}pe of equipment used for excavation versus the shallow cut required for an above ground structure. Scrapers and motor graders are typically used for shallow grading and cover a much large area on a given day, while an excavator operates in a much smaller footprint on a given day and transfers material to a haul truck for transport off-site. Thus, the four acre footprint of grading activities on a maximum day was appropriately analyzed in the Addendum due to the type of excavation required for a subterranean structure. It is important to note that the analysis used the URBEMIS worst-case emission factor of 38.2 pounds of fugitive dust (PM~o) per day/acre to analyze potential site grading impacts. This is approximately four times the average default assumption of 10 pounds per day/acre and provides an extra level of conservatism in the analysis. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, construction-related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds, including those associated with PM~o, NOx and C0. In addition, all of the construction-related mitigation measures included in the Certified EIR wil] also be implemented for Phase ]b. With regard to cumulative construction impacts, as discussed in Section 4.2 of the Addendum, Air Quality, SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the Air Quality Management Plan pursuant to Federal Clean Air Act mandates. Phase lb would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and implement all feasible mitigation measures. In addition, Phase lb would comply with adopted AQMP emissions control measures and would not exceed the SCAQMD recommended localized City of ArcaJie Wes[field San[n Anita ~ March 2007 Page 44 Reponses to Comments significance thresholds for CO, NOZ, PM~o, and PM2.5. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates and the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects Basin-wide, which would include each of the 31 related projects. Thus, similar to the conclusion reached within the Certified EIR, Phase lb's overall contribution to regional air quality impact during short-term construction activities would not be cumulatively significant. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-52, below, with regard to the analysis of geological impacts within the Certified EIR and within the Addendum. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-15 above regazding the less than significant construction noise impact of the Project. COMMENT 1-47: Additionally, the EIR does not have an analysis of all the project construction related emissions. While the soil disturbance area and the diesel powered equipment fleet operating on four (4) acres were analyzed, there was no table or analysis regarding air quality impacts if both soi] disturbance and diesel powered equipment were operating at the same time; this may create additiona] new sigiiFicant impacts for the project. Further, other construction activities, such as applying coatings or Finishing to the project may occur at the same time as the other construction activities; yet there was no analysis and multiple construction activities could potentially result in substantially more severe significant air quality effects. In addition, the EIR states that application of more than 37.5 gallons of paint would cause the ROG emission threshold of 75 pounds per day to be exceeded, but the EIR did not indicate how much paint would be used or the total.emissions of ROG. See EIlt page 4-29. The EIR admits that the ROG emissions would be exceeded because it states that "maintaining a]ess than significant threshold entails use of building materials that are pre-coated under factory conditions, or limiting the amount of paint and other VOGcontaining compounds applied on a given day." See EIR page 4-29. However, no mitigation measure guarantees that the mall would use only "pre-coated under factory conditions" paint, or limits the amount of paint and other VOC-containing compounds on a given day. As a result, construction-related emissions for ROGNOC would exceed significance thresholds even though the EIR did not explicitly disclose this construction-related air quality impact. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-47: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-14, the City has required, as a part of the Addendum, updated analyses related to construction related emissions. The air quality analysis provided in the Addendum addresses potential construction emissions using the SCAQMD recommended LTRBEMIS model. Potential emissions from each stage of construction (demolition, grading activities, building erection, application of azchitectural coatings, and Ci[v of Arcadia ~ ~1'eslfield Ssnta Anita ~ March 2007 Page 45 Reponses to Comments paving) were addressed and potential impacts were disclosed in the Addendum. Table 4-2 provides the maximum daily construction emissions for each pollutant independent of construction stage. All pollutants with the exception of ROC, reflect site grading activities (i.e., combination of heavy-duty construction equipment, hau] truck activity, construction employee trips, and fugitive dust emissions). ROC emissions reflect building construction (i.e., combination of heavy-duty construction equipment, delivery truck activity, construction employee tnps, architectura] coatings, and paving activities). Please refer to the URBEMIS output sheet for additional details. The estimate of ROC architectural coating emissions is based on the construction schedule and use of architectural coatings that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 VOC limits. ROC emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance threshold and no additional mitigation measures are required. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR, construction-related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. COMMENT 1-48: CEQA does not allow the prepazation of an Addendum if there are new significant impacts that were not analyzed in a prior EIR. An expansion and conversion to discount store operations wil] generate the need for more parking, a significant amount of grading will be necessary for the underground pazking garage which was not previously analyzed, and that grading will crea[e significant construction-related air quality impacts. Further, construction may occur over an area larger than four acres, and different phases of construction may occur simultaneously. Additionally, applying paint, stains, and other coatings to the building will create ROG emissions in amounts that would exceed AQMD's thresholds, as there is no mitigation measure to restrict their application. Additionally, the different phases of construction (i.e. grading, building construction and applying paint and stains) may occur simultaneously which could potentially create significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, Because of the lazge number of new construction-related air quality significant impacts that could occur, an Addendum would not be appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3)(A) because "the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration." By failing to call the impacts significant in the prior EIR and presenting a significantly changed project that proposes a subterranean garage that would create new significant air quality impacts, a subsequent EIR would be necessary to analyze and mitigate these new significant impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-48: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant. As discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 1-14 and 1-47, the Addendum includes a detailed analysis related to construction related emissions using the most recent SCAQMD recommended URBEMIS model. Potential emissions from each stage of construction (demolition, grading Citv of Arcedia W'es[feld Sante Ani[a Mamh 2007 Page 46 to Comments activities, export, building erection, application of azchitectural coatings, and paving) were addressed and potential impacts were disclosed in Ihe Addendum. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EII2, construction-related emissions would be less than the SCAQMD significance thresholds. See also Response to Comments Nos. 1-1 and 1-3 regarding the standard for preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. COMMENT 1-49: The Air Quality Section discusses asbestos containing materials. It is not clear whether any portion of the Robinsons May department store building or other scructures would need to be demolished as part of Westfield's development plans. V/hile an asbestos analysis belongs in ihe EIIt, it should occur in the Hazards section, which does not exist in the EIR, and not in the Air Quality section. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-49: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant. With respect to changes to any structure on the Westfield Santa Anita Site, changes will incorporate all proper safety measures. As discussed in the Certified EIR and the Addendum, construction- related activities would have to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 which would limit the exposure of asbestos to sensitive receptors if asbestos-containing materials are encountered during construction. COMMENT 1-50: For the operational air quality impacts, the analysis only analyzed the weekday vehicle trips even though the weekend vehicle trips were to be over 20 percent higher. See EIR page 4- 29. Adding the emissions from over 20 percent more vehicles generated by discount store uses and mall expansion may cause the emissions to exceed significance thresholds; this may create new significant impacts that would need to be analyzed and mitigated in a subsequent EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-50: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-7 regarding the conservative nature of the traffic analysis and the weekday/weekend analyses. Because a majority of traffic, and peak hour traffic, occurs on weekdays during rush hour, the most conservative air quality analysis would result from peak hour analysis on weekdays, even though weekends may result in additional visitors to a shopping center. This is consistent with industry standards for analyzing air quality and traffic impacts related to shopping centers. The City has required, as a part of the Addendum, updated City of Arcadia Senta Anita March 2007 Page 47 Reponses to Comments analyses related to project emissions. In addition, the City also required a weekend traffic analysis that confirmed that the weekday analysis was still more conservative. Furthermore, the air quality analysis prepared for the Addendum evaluated both weekday and weekend impacts associated with the proposed Project based on data included in the Iraffic study. The maximum average daily trips were used for purposes of calculating regional emissions and local CO hotspots were analyzed for both weekday and weekend peak-hour conditions. The conclusions in the Addendum are consistent with the findings in the Certified EIR. The comment does not raise any issues warranting a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR. As discussed previously, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. This comment is not relevant for purposes of the air quality analysis. COMMENT 1-51: Another concern is that the air analysis also assumed a 2002 build out year for the project although other sections of the EIR examined Year 2015. The 2002 date was incorrect as only about one-third of the proposed expansion has occurred even though it is now 2006. Equally so, the 2015 date may be entirely speculative. The build out year for the project must be consistent and all of the impacts reanalyzed if only for this one reason. The EIR also has a strange analysis that utilizes the General plan build out level and analyzed the air quality impacts of the incremental increase in pollutants above the level allowed by the General Plan. See EIR page 4- 31. The General Plan build out should not be the baseline unless the mall build out occurs subsequent to that time. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-51: Refer to Response to Comment Nos. I-11 and 1-37 regarding the buildout year for the project used within the Certified EIR. Regional operational emissions within the Certified EIR were correctly evaluated using a 6uildout year of 2002 (refer to page 4-30 of the Certified EII2), which is consistent with the buildout year used in other sections of that document. That analysis is fully consistent with the AQMD methodologies and thresholds used by AQMD in 2000. In addition, page 4-31 of the Certified EIR appropriately includes an analyses of the incrementa] regional air quality emissions associated with changing the FAR from the site from 0.40 to 0.50. COMMENT 1-52: (~ Geoloey and Soils. As with other impact areas, the EIR does not utilize CEQA Guidelines Appendix G to determine thresholds of significance with regazd to analysis of CiN of Arcadie W'estfield Senta Anita ~ March 2007 Page 48 Reponses to Commencs geology and soils impacts. The EII2 did not examine thresholds related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or if the project is located on expansive soil. The EIR states that the site has previously been graded, and that excavation of paving and soil would be limited. "The site has previously been graded as part of construction of the existing mall. As a result, project related grading will be limited to excavation of paving and soil to create finished building pads.... Because the site is already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil would be minimal during the construction phase of the proposed project," See EIR page 4-41. There will be a significant amount of grading for the expansion because the bulk of the parking structure will be subterranean. This presents a significant change in the project that would potentially cause new significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the prior EIR. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-52: Section 43, Geology and Soils, of the Certified EIR includes an analysis of grading, regional seismicity (including identification of nearby earthquake faults), general soils conditions, gross slope stability and liquefaction, consistent with CEQA. The Certified EIR appropriately concludes that with compliance with the City of Arcadia Grading Ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and adherence to the specific recommendations of a soils engineer with regazd to foundation plans and building loads, no significant geotechnical impacts would result from the project. The Addendum to the Certified EIR includes additional analysis and finds that Phase lb would not produce new or substantially worsen geological impacts, and that no additional mitigation measures would be required. In addition, grading for the Phase lb improvements is addressed in Section 43 of the Addendum. As discussed therein, compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that potential impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant. COMMENT 1-53: (g) Land Use and PlanninQ. Once again the EIR does not utilize the thresholds of significance from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and omits the threshold relating to conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. If such a threshold analysis had been performed, then the project's inconsistency with the General Plan's chapter on Implementation and Monitoring would have been highlighted. The mall's existing 1,197,100 square feet with the addition of 690,000 square feet would exceed the maximum nonresidential density that would be allowed under both a 0.40 FAR(1,404,896 square feet) and a 0.50 FAR (1,756,121 square feet), Consequently, even if the City had amended the portion of the General Plan in Chapter 6 that limits development to 0.40 FAR (which it did not do), the proposed project totaling 1,887,100 squaze feet would still be inconsistent with the General Plan as amended. Citv of Arcadia Wutfield Sante Ani[a March 2007 Page 49 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-53: In accordance with CEQA and the environmental checklist questions set forth in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 4.4, Land Use and Planning of the Certified EIR addresses consistency of the project with General Plan and Zoning, compatibility with surrounding land uses and consistency with land use policies. In addition, the change in the FAR of the site was clearly addressed on pages 4-50 and 4-52 of Section 4.4 of the Certified EIR Land Use. Also refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-2 and 1-3 regarding consistency of the Phase ]b improvements with the General Plan and the FAR for the site. COMMENT 1-54: In addition, the EIR states that far the westerly expansion of the mall "no significant land use impacts aze anticipated due to the existing 6- to 8-foot landscaped berm and the approximately 20 foot elevation differential between the building pad and the existing residences." See EIR page 4-52, The EIR does not provide the required analysis to support this conclusion. The expansion may create or exacerbate aesthetic, light, shadowing and noise impacts on the residences to the west; and the level of detail present in the EIR does not support a conclusion that there would be no significant impacts; because of the project change that would bring the open air mall doser to residences to the west, there may be new significant impacts. Further, while there may be a 6- to 8-foot wide landscaped buffer, there is no indication as to why this buffer would be sufficient to mitigafe potentially significant impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-54: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-45 above regazding the detailed analysis of aesthetics, views and light and glare included in the Certified EIR and the Addendum. The text cited on page 4-52 of the EIR regarding an existing landscaped berm and the elevation difference between the building pads and residents is supported by a detailed analysis of aesthetics, views, light and glare that is presented in Section 4.1, Aesthetics of the Certified E1R. In particular, refer to the viewshed impact analysis presented in the photograph in Exhibit 4-8 of the Certified EIR which shows the existing berm, the topographic relationship of the proposed buildings with the residents west of Baldwin Avenue and the eight-lane roadway with a landscaped median that divides the residential uses and the Westfield property. In addition, the location of the proposed Phase lb improvements is accounted for in all of the issue areas addressed in the Addendum and no significant impacts to the residential land uses to the west would result from the Phase lb improvements. It should be noted that the Phase lb improvements would not have any shadow impacts on off-site properties. Refer to Response to Comment No.l-15 regarding the noise analysis in the Certified EIR and Addendum. City of Arcadia N'es[field Santa Anita March 2007 Page 50 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-55: The EIR's conflict/compatibility analysis with regard to the General Plan does not perform a policy by policy analysis. While the various sections of the General Plan are summarily analyzed, there is no policy by policy analysis that is typical in an EIR. In the Environmental Resources - Air Quality section, the EIR states that the 600,000 square foot expansion "... exceeds the square footage allowed under the adopted General Plan by approximately 300,000 square feet. As a result, the proposed project exceeds the level of development assumed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)," See page 4-55. Even though there is an apparent conflict with the AQMP, the EIR stated that no significant land use impacts are an[icipated. See EII2 page 4-71. This should have been analyzed in the Air Quality section of the EIR, and the expansion may present a new significant and unavoidable environmental impact as it is not clear whether the development assumed in the AQMP has been modified to reflect the additional square footage of the mall. The EII2 states that the 600,000 square foot expansion would be consistent with RCPG policy 3.03 which relates to "the timing, financing, and location of public facilities; utility systems, and transportation systems..." used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies, but includes no analysis. See EM page 4-58. For any expansion, analysis of the public facilities, utility systems and transportation systems would be necessary, not just conclusory statements regarding their availability. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-55: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-53, the Certified EIR analyzed land use issues in compliance with CEQA, and was certified in 2000 and is now final. A policy by policy analysis of consistency of the project with the General Plan and with SCAG's RCPG is included on pages 4-52 through 4-70 of the Certified EIR. In addition, the AQMP is discussed on pages 4-24, 4-25 and 4-31 of Section 4.2, Air Quality. Specifically, as discussed therein, while the project would exceed the square footage assumed by the General Plan at that time and thus, the AQMP, the increased square footage associated with an increase in the FAR of the site from 0.40 and 0.50, and part of the proposed project, would not result in an inconsistency with the AQMP. In addition, an analysis of public services, utility systems and transportafion systems was included in Sections 4.6 Public Services, 4.7 TransportatiorilTraffic and 4.8 Utilities/Service systems oF the Certified EIR. The Addendum demonstrates that no significant impacts would result in these issues areas as a result of the Phase ]b improvements. City of Areadia . ~yes[field Santa Anita March 2007 Page 51 Reponses to Comments COMMENT 1-56: (h) Noise. Increases in noise levels above 5 dBA above baseline levels in areas not exceeding ambient noise standards would be a po[ential significant noise increase, yet the EIR does not indicate that a 5 dBA noise increase in baseline noise levels could be a significant noise increase. Traffic and operations generated by the project may create noise above 5 dBA in areas not exceeding ambient noise standards, and this could cause a new significant environmental impact. Further, there was no analysis of construction noise impacts on people or horses at Santa Anita Park. People and horses at Santa Anita Pazk could be exposed to potentially significant impacts, and an analysis would be required in any subsequent environmental review document. Additionally, the EIR did not have a construction vibration impacts analysis. With regard to operational impacts, the noise study examined existing conditions, 2002 conditions, as well as 2020 conditions. According to the 2020 analysis, there was a three dB(A) noise increase along Driveway A east of Baldwin Avenue (E) which would increase the dB(A) level above the 65 dB(A) threshold for a significant impact Yet, the EIR does not identify this noise increase as a significant impact, stating "such small incremental increases will not expose any new noise- sensi[ive uses to excessive (>65 dB CNEL) [sic] not already experiencing somewhat elevated levels" See EIR page 4-88. This is simply not accurate since there was one receptor location with a significant impact of a 3.0 dB(A) increase above 65 dB(A). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-56: Refer to Response to Comment No.l-15 regarding the adequacy of the noise analyses. The Certified EIR appropriately relies upon the impact criteria set forth in its General Plan and also uses 3 decibels to define a"measureable increase" in noise levels (refer to page 4-79 of the Certified EIR.) Furthermore, based on the State of Califomia Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for noise that have been incorporated into the City's General Plan as well as [he thresholds of significance presented in the Certified EIR, the Addendum uses the following criteria to determine whether significant noise impacts would occur: • Noise levels less than 3 dBA are not discemable and not significant. . Noise levels greater than 3 dBA but less than 5 dBA are considered noticeable, but not significant, if noise levels remain below the City's CNEL noise standards at sensitive land uses. • Noise levels 3 dBA or greater are potentially significant, if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's CNEL standards. • These thresholds of significance are consistent with the recent amendment of Performance Standazd No. 44 of the General Plan. o[ Arcadle March 2007 Page 52 Reponses to Commen~ As discussed in the Addendum, the largest CNEL noise level increases associated with operation of the proposed Project would be associated with off-site traffic noise from vehicles traveling to and from the site. The maximum traffic noise level increase associated with traffic from Phase lb would be along roadways adjacent to the Project site. Table 4-9 on page 90 of the Addendum shows the predicted Phase ]b noise level increase (i.e., Future 2008 No Phase lb compared with Future 2008 with Phase lb) for roadways adjacent to the Project site. As shown in Table 4-9, the noise level increase would be 0.1 dBA along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. By way of reference, a 1 dBA increase in noise level is an almost imperceptible increase even under taboratory conditions. Overall, traffic associated with the Phase lb would not perceptibly change the noise environment and'would result in a less than sig~ificant impact. Thus, impacts would 6e within the envelope of environmental impact evaluated within the Certified EIR for the Praject. COMMENT 1-57: (i) Public Services - Fire Protection. The EIR indicates that the City's costs to maintain equipment and apparatus and to train and equip fire protection and paramedic personnel would increase, but the language in the EIR is not clear as to whether there would be a potentially significant impact. There are no mitigation measures for non-cumulative impacts on fire protection services. As the City well knows, after the partial expansion of the mall, the number of false fire alarms and service calls to the mall have increased dramatically. This increase in demand for services would represent new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete that the project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR The subsequent environmental review will need to address the potentially significant demands on fire protection and paramedic services. Additiona]ly, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds should be used. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-57: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-16 regarding the adequacy of the fire services analyses. The mitigation measure on Page 4-91 of the Certified EIR that addresses compliance with City Codes and conditions related to fire protections addresses both project and cumulative impacts. In addition, the analysis of fire protection services is based on thresholds of significance established by the City of Arcadia which account for the general environmental checklist questions found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. COMMENT 1-58: (j) Public Services - Police Protection. Once again, the EIR uses thresholds from the General Plan EIR which do not match up exactly with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds. Ci~y of Arcadia ~ W'estfield Sen[e Anita March 2007 Page 53 Reponses to Comments The EIR indicates that the thresholds of significance would be if the City were unable to maintain (1) a five minute response time for emergency calls with approximately 40 percent of an officer's work day spent in preventative patrol, and (2) adequate police and private security, if needed, as determined by the Arcadia Police Department for non-residential development. See EIR page 4-92. The EIR indicates that prior to expansion, the mall comprised approximately 22 percent of the total crime reports filed in the City, and that the expansion would use approximately 12 percent more of the police department's resources. Instead of analyzing the actual impacts on police protection services in the City, the EIR engages in deferred analysis, stating "full development will be required before the total impact can be assessed, however, it is likely that the department may require the addition of some personnel (sworn police officers and non-support staf~." See EIR page 4-93. Because there has already been a significant partial build out of the mall expansion, more information is now available and the existing police service impacts can be used to help estimate the impacts that further mall expansion would create. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-58: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-17 regarding police protection services and the Phase lb improvements. The analysis of police protection services is based on thresholds of significance established by the City of Arcadia which account for the general environmenta] checklist questions found in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-17, and within the Addendum, the cost to the City to provide police protection services to Westfield Santa Anita, even during the temporary increase in the volume of calls for service, pales in comparison to the tax revenue that Phase 1 a, Phase lb and the center as a whole produce for the City. COMMENT 1-59: (k) Transnortation/Circulation. The previous EIR identified only one intersection with a Level of Service ("LOS") of E or F but current traffic analyses of existing conditions identify a LOS of E or F at many intersections sunounding the mall. For the number of intersections that would be impacted by increased traffic generated by the discount store operations and further mal] expansion that were not examined in the previous EIR we do not have the information necessary to ascertain the LOS at the intersections that were not examined in the previous EIR at the time the previous EIR was certified. At the very least, we do know that the addition of the project's traffic to the surrounding roadways would cause additional significant environmental impacts that were not previously identified. With the mall expansion, there are a number of changed circumstances which indicate the expansion would have new significant and unavoidable impacts, especially as it relates to the traffic conditions. Because of the number of related projects and changed environmental conditions, the project would create Cfry ofArcadia . Westfield Sante Aniro March 2007 Page 54 to Comments new or more severe environmental impacts not just with traffic, but also with impacts relating to air quality, noise, and public services. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-59: There is no new information or changed circumstances warranting preparation of a Supplementa] or Subsequent EIR. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-1. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. The Certified EIft identified one intersection at LOS E(SunseUHuntington) and one at LOS F (Rosemead/Huntington) in Year 2000 conditions.' The Addendum identifies these same two intersections as operating at LOS E in Yeaz 2005 conditions (page 14, Table 2 of Appendix C of the Addendum). Thus, the comment is incorrect in alleging that "the previous EIR identified only one intersection with a LOS E or F" and in alleging that the "cunent traffic analyses of existing conditions identify a LOS E or F at many intersections surrounding the mall." Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-6 through 1-12 regarding the adequacy of the traffic analyses. Refer also to Response to Comment Nos. 1-14 through 1-18 regarding the adequacy of the air quality, noise and public services analyses. COMMENT 1-60: The Transportation/Circulation section of the EIR was based on a traffic study performed in February 2000 by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. A new traffic study would be necessary to (1) accurately reflect the existing baseline environmental conditions, (2) measure the environmental impacts of the projec[, and (3) assess the cumulative related project impacts. Because of the change in circumstances related to traffic conditions there would be new significant impacts. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-60: Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates has conducted a new traffic study to analyze any changes in traffic from conditions in the Certified EIR to present conditions, and that study has been submitted to the City, and is included as Appendix C to the Addendum. Refer to Response to CommentNos. 1-9 and 1-12. COMMENT 1-61: For example, the installation of the Dave and Busters in the portion of the expansion that has already occurred has caused significant pazking and traffic problems at the mall. Pazking at the mall for Dave and Busters simply does not work and there is inadequate capacity to Citv of Arcadia W'estfield San[e Anita ' March 2007 Page 55 Reponses to Comments accommodate all the uses at the mall as a result of the portion of the expansion already constructed. The inadequate parking capacity as a result of Dave and Busters represents a new significan[ environmental impact that was not analyzed in the prior EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the inadequate parking and general traffic problems at the mall created by Dave and Busters represents "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified" that shows "the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EII2." RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-61: Adequate parking is provided for all uses on the Westfield Santa Anita site. The popularity of Phase ] a created an imbalance of parking distribution at Westfield Santa Anita, so while parking was, and has always been, adequately provided, internal circulation and changing demand patterns created an imbalance whereby shoppers would seek pazking in certain areas of the parking lot. Pages 38 and 39 of Appendix C of the Addendum detail the ~2 million in improvements that have been added to the intema] circulation system in the mall to remedy this imbalance. The improvements to the internal circulaYion system include: a. A continuous ring road, b. A two-way-]eft-turn-lane (TWLTL) on the ring road adjacent to parking, c. Revision to the southeast parking area to connect parking aisles to the ring road, and d. Improvements to the southeast driveway connecting Huntington Drive to the ring road. The above changes resulted in an increase of 68 additiona] on-site parking spaces and have resulted in improved circulation and parking access. See also Response to Comment Nos. 1-1 and 1-3 regarding preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. In addition to the changes discussed in the Addendum, the project applicant has installed a parking counting system on the parking garage to alert people as to the location of the remaining available spaces in the garage on a real-time basis. The installation of the car- counting system has already improved internal circulation within the mall and reduced the amount of searching inside the parking garage. Westfield Sente Ani[a March 2007 Page 56 Reponses to Commenu COMMENT 1-62: Problems with the existing Transportation/Circulation section of the EIR include the following: • Only P.M. peak hour trips were counted. Any expansion to the mall would have A.M. peak hour trips as well. Even though the A.M. peak trips generated may not be as many as those generated for the P.M. time period, there wil] nevertheless be A.M. trips generated that could create an environmental impact. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-62: Refer to Resp~nse to Comment No. 1-6 regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis. COMMENT 1-63: • According to EIR page 4-98 traffic counts were performed only on one day, October 7, 1999 and not performed on several days. This throws into question ihe accuracy of the traffic study numbers. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-63: The comment speaks to the traffic count base that was included in the Certified EIR for the project. II is not unusual to count all of the locations for one project on a single day. With dosely spaced study intersections, locations are often counted on the same day to assure a smooth flow of traffic through the intersections. If multiple days are counted, adjustments to the counts often have to be made to replicate that flow through the study intersections. Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-7 regarding the traffic counts used in the Addendum. COMMENT 1-64: • Weekend peak hour trips were not analyzed. On page 4-29 of EIR it was disclosed that weekend peak hour trips would generate over 20 percent more trips than P.M. weekday trips, yet the environmental impacts of these trips were not analyzed. Ci~}' Sanla Anita March 2007 Page 57 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-64: Page 35 (Table SC) of Appendix C of the Addendum shows the results of a Saturday analysis. Phase lb traffic would not result in any significant impacts under Saturday conditions. Also, refer to Response to Comment No. 1-7. COMMENT 1-65: • Only 21 intersections were chosen for analysis and many key intersections were omitted from analysis. Considering that prior to mitigation at least 11 of the 21 intersections had significant and unavoidable impacts prior to mitigation, we suspect that the project would signiftcantly impact more intersections. There is no information as to the methodology used to determine which intersections were analyzed. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-65: The statement is incorrect in that the Certified EIR did not find significant impacts at 11 of 21 intersections. With full build out of all 600,000 square fee[, the project would creafe a significant impact at only three intersections. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 1-10 regarding the study area used in the Addendum. COMMENT 1-66: • The EIR did not analyze construction traffic impacts or the construction impacts on parking at the mall. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-66: Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associa[es has conduc[ed an additional traffic study to analyze any changes in traffic from conditions in the Certified EIR to present conditions, including construction impacts. The analysis of construction impacts (traffic and parking) are found in Appendix C of the Addendum. Also refer to Response to Comment No. 1-6, above. COMMENT ]-67: • The trip distribution pattern"... was developed based on the mazket research conducted by Kirtland Consulting, and was approved by the City." An outdated market research may not be the most appropriate way to ascertain the impacts related Santa Ani[a March 2007 Page 58 Reponses to Comments to tnp distribution for any mall expansion, particularly when such market study did not contemplate a large discount merchandise store. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-67: The City, at the time the Certified EIR was prepared, determined that the Kirkland Consulting Study was the appropriate method to distribute trips and that determination is not now subject to challenge. The Addendum did not base the traffic distribution of project traffic on the Year 2000 market study. Instead, the actual traffic distribution of project traffic was validated with real-life conditions (as determined by traffic counts at the project driveways) and used to distribute and assign project traffic. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. COMMENT 1-68: . The CMP analysis with regard to Rosemead Boulevard is weak and contradictory. At one point, the EIR states that mitigation at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive would mitigate traffic impacts to a level less than significant, yet in the next paragraph, the EII2 states that no project related traffic would be carried on Rosemead Boulevard. See EIR page 4-111. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-68: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-]2, Phase la has been completed, and no significant impact on the intersection of Rosemead and Huntington has occurred based on the lates[ available data. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 1-6 and 1-10, Fehr & Peers/Kaku Associates has conducted an additional traffic study to analyze any changes in traffic from conditions in the Certified EIR to present conditions. COMMENT 1-69: • For the first phase of expansion (up [0 400,000 square feet GLA), the project applicant either had to complete or provide a bond for the completion of improvements, prior to building permit issuance, for only three intersections. Those three intersections had significant impacts at the 2002 future conditions, but it is now 2006 and in those improvements have not been completed. Ciry of Santa Ani[a March 2007 Page 59 Reponses to Comments RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-64: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-12 regarding the Phase la mitigation measures. COMMENT 1-70: • For Yhe second phase of expansion, the project applicant either had to complete or bond far the completion of the remaining mitigation measures. If the project applicant had to bond for fhe improvements, Chere is nothing to compel tbe City to actually build the improvements so that there would actually be mitigation of significant traffic impacts. See EIR page 4-131. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-70: See Response to Comment No. 1-12 requirements for Phase la. Westfield has complied with all of the COMMENT 1-71: • The study does not disdose, or analyze any of the changes to the on-site circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle or other improvements and connections. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-71: The Certified EIR was approved by and certified in the City Council in 2000. Pages 38 and 39 of Appendix C of the Addendum discuss the improvements to intemal circulation that were implemented after Phase la opening and discusses the applicability of these improvements to the Phase lb development. See also Response to Comment No. 1-61. COMMENT 1-72: With respect to the proposed discount store, the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") does create separate definitions for free-standing discount stores and shopping malls. Free-standing discount stores are described by ITE as "free-standing stores with off-street parking. They usually offer a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products. They typically maintain long store hours 7 days a week. The stores included in this land use aze often the only ones on the site, but they can also be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center and/or service station. Free-standing discount stores are also sometimes found as separate parcels within a retail complex with their own dedicated parking." A discount store in the Robinsons May building would not technically be a"free- Cirv ot Arcadia R'es[field San[a Anite ~ March 2007 Page 60 Reponses to Comments standing" discount retailer as it would presumably be integated into the remaining portion of the mall. Nevertheless, ITE does not distinguish between free-standing discount retail stores and those discount retail stores that are found within shopping centers. According to ITE, a discount retail store would be classified as a freestanding discount store or superstore. A superstore is differentiated from an ordinary discount store by the inclusion of a full-service grocerylmarket component. Both a discount store and a discount superstore generate significantly more traffic than an anchor in a shopping center on a per squaze foot basis. Even though the proposed store would be a part of the mall, it would have free-standing characteristics, and it is a distinguishable use from other uses present at the mall. It would be inappropriate to classify a discount retail store as part of a shopping center for traffic generation purposes, because the characteristics of such a store fall much more within the descnption of a discount store/superstore than the definition of a shopping center, as defined by ITE. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-72: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. COMMENT 1-73: A discount retail store would generate significantly more traffic than Robinsons May whether or not a ful]-service grocery store is included within it. The Westfield EIR used ITE land use code 820 for shopping centers when analyzing the traffic impacts for the existing portion of the mall. The ITE code for a discount retail store would fall into land use code a 815 (free- sfanding discount store) or land use code 813 (free-standing discount superstore). The average daily trip generation per 1,000 squaze feet of gross leasable area for a shopping center is 42.94, 56.02 for a free-standing, discount store, and 49.21 for a free-standing discount superstore. Average weekday pm peak hour trips for a shopping center, free-standing discount store and free-standing discount superstore on a 1,000 square foot gross leasable area basis are 3.75, 5.06 and 3.87, respectively. Saturday average daily trips and peak hour trips also show that a free- standing discount store has significantly more trips generated than a shopping center on a per square foot basis. Greater traffic impacts associated with a discount retailer would cause greater parking, air quality and noise impacts. The greater traffic impacts, and resulting greater impacts associated with the change to a discount retail store, have not been analyzed.. The impacts would likely be significant considering the ambient levels of traffic surrounding the mall, and even small increases in traffic can make a significant environmental impact. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-73: As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1-25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. City of Arcadia ~1'esMeld Santa Anita M arch 2007 Page 61 to Commenls COMMENT 1-74: (1) Utilities/Service Svstems -- Sold Waste Disposal. The EIR does not analyze the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance for solid waste. The EIR does not analyze whether there is sufficient capacity in the available landfills. There is no conclusion whether the project would have a significant impact. Further, the ER impact relates solely to waste diversion, but even if there is waste diversion, there may still be a significant impact due to lack of landfill capacity. These issues should be appropriately analyzed in the subsequent environmental review document. Landfills that would service this project have diminished capacity, necessitating a supplemental EIR due to the significant impact created. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-74: The Certified EIR indicates that adequate capacity for anticipated demand is available (pp. 4-143-146), and the County of Los Angeles, Department of Environmental Health, Solid Waste Management Program, reviewed the Drafi EIR and had no comments. (pp. 2-6-7) Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-18 regarding the adequacy of the solid waste analysis in the Addendum. COMMENT 1-75: IIL MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 7. Comuletion and Required Public Imqrovements. Westfield has developed and operated its first expansion without completing the traffic improvements that were required as a condition of that development. These include three key intersections: (1) the Eastbound 1-210 ramp intersection with Baldwin, (2) the intersection of Foothill and Baldwin, and (3) the intersection at Huntington and Rosemead. Westfield's new operations have increased traffic in the area, which negatively affects the neighboring properties,, surrounding residential neighborhoods and businesses. Conversion to discount store operations and further mall expansion will only add more traffic thereby exacerbating conditions created by these uncompleted improvements. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-75: Refer to Response to Comment No. 1-12. Westfield has complied with all of its requirements for Phase ] a. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-6 through 1-12 regarding the adequacy of the traffic analysis in the Addendum. As discussed in Response to Comment No. 1- 25, no plans to convert the Robinsons May building are under consideration by the City at this time. Thus, this comment is not relevant. Citv of Arcadia R'estfield Sante Anite ~ March 2007 Page 62 Reponses to Comments GOMMENT 1-76: The analysis provided for Westfield's past expansion approval has not been comprehensive and is inadequate for the City to assess future development on Westfield's property, including any change of use for the Robinsons May building. The type of comprehensive analysis called for above is consistent with the detailed analysis that tl~e City has required for the Santa Anita Specific Plan project. No less should be required of Westfield. Any further development plans should be subject to a full CEQA review through a new EIR before the City schedules any public hearings on the General Plan amendment, Zone Change, and Design review entitlements that will be required for Westfield's mall development plans. The mall expansion analyzed in 2000 has significantly changed in design, scope, and use and the surrounding circumstances and conditions have also changed. In addition, new information has come to light which shows that impacts on municipa] services such as fire protection are much more severe than previously assumed. Cumulative development has also contributed to creating the potential for significant new or more severe environmental impacts to be created that should be adequately disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for any new development. Any further mall development and any discount store use or other change to the Robinsons May building will require preparation of a new EIR Please call me if you have any questions. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1-76: As indicated in Response to Comment No. ]-Z5, this comment ]etter was submitted to the City of Arcadia during the time that Westfield was working with the City regarding the design for the project and during the same time that the City was directing the preparation of the Addendum. Thus, this comment letter was submitted without an understanding of the project or the contents of the Addendum. Plans to convert the Robinsons May site are not under consideration by the City at this time. As discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 1-1 and 1-3, the proposed Phase lb improvements are entirely within the envelope of development analyzed within the Certified EIR and are entirely consistent with the various discretionary actions for the project site that were approved along with the Certified EIR in 2000. The processes for the Certified EIR and the various discretionary actions were open to fizll public scrutiny as requested by the comment. Nonetheless, as discussed in Response to Comment Nos. 1-1 and 1-3, even though the Phase I b improvements are well within the envelope of development evaluated in the Certified EIR, a thorough analysis of Phase lb has been included again in the Addendum. A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is not required for the Phase ]b improvements. It should be noted that Phase Ib requires only an architectural design review and does not require any General Plan amendment or zone change as asserted incorrectly by the commentor. Refer to Response to Comment Nos. 1-9 and 1-16 regarding the adequacy of the cumulative analyses and fire services analysis, respectively. City af Arcadia ~YcsMield Santa Anita March 2007 Page 63 LAW OFFICES CHRISTENSEN~ GLASER~ FINK~ JACOBS~ WEIL & SHAPIRO~ LLP I0250 GON6TELLATION BOIILEVARO NIN6TEENTH FLODR LO6 AHOELE6~ CALIFORNIA 8006% (910) SS9-3D00 Fwi (310) 556-2B20 OIRECT OIAL N11MlER (310) 262-6277 EMAIL: rGLABER~CXRI8GLA9C.COM February 27, 2007 Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Califomia 91066 Re: Phase lb ofthe Westfield Mall Expansion Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: RECEIVED PLANNING SERVICES 7R MERITAS lPW FIRMS W00.LOWI~E This office represents botti The Turf Club and Santa Anita Companies, Inc. with respect to the Westfield Mall Expansion. Today, the Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public hearing regazding ADROS-26, in which Westfield LLC ("Westfield") has applied for architectural design review of an expansion of the ~i%estfield Santa Anita Mall (the "Mall Expansion" or "Phase lb"). Phase lb relies upon an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (`BIR") certified by the Arcadia City Council in 2000. L INTTiODUCTION As we will demonstrate below, under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), an Addendum is the wrong document to analyze this project, and Phase ]b cannot be approved until at least a Supplemental EIR is circuiated to the public with accurate and up-to- date information regazding the potential impacts of Phase I b. Even if an Addendum were the appropriate document, the Mall Expansion could not be approved because this Addendum does not accurately analyze the Pbase lb Mall Expansion nor properly disclose its potential environmental impacts. Further, regardless of which environmenta] document is prepazed, the City's analysis of the Phase lb Mall Expansion in the Addendum is flawed -- based on a misleading Project Description, based on inconsistent building area calculations -- and is inconsistent with the City's own General Plan. In this case, the Arcadia General Plan 1'units the Mall Expansion site to a Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") of 0.50. (General Plan, page 212, Table 2-A.) However, as demonsirated in the EIR and Addendum, the FAR for the expanded Mall will exceed 0.5o, without the benefit of required environmental ana(ysis or a General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission has no option but to reject the Phase Ib Mall Expansion and order a complete and adequate environmental analysis. First, this letter will address the many 469454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 2 inadequacies of the EIR and Addendum under the California Environmental Qualiry Act ("CEQA"). Second, we will describe the inconsistencies of the Mall Expansion project with the General Plan, including the misstated FAR calculations. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES As pointed out in your Stafl'Report (dated February 21, 2007) ("Staff Report") CEQA Guideline 15162 requires that the City prepaze, recirculate and certify a subsequent or Supplemental EIR whenever, among other things, "substantial changes aze proposed in the project which will 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 siguficant effects." (Guideline 15162; Staff Report, page 13.) Similarly, a subsequent or Supplemental EIR is required where "substantia] changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken whicb will require major revisions of the previous EIR...." A Supplemental EIR is also required when "new information of a substantial importance" shows that the project will have additional significant impacts. (Id.) In ttris case, the project presented incorporates substanrial changes (including partially subterranean pazking with addit~onal grading unPacts), changed circumstances (including delays in construction of the project and increases in new iraffic and new related projects), and new information (regazding the true size of the project and the severity of many azeas of potential impact). The CEQA inadequacies of the Addendum have been previously raised in correspondence to the City on the record from, among others, Caruso Affiliated (which correspondence is incorporated herein by reference), but it is helpful to recount these deficiencies once more. These inadequacies arise in the important areas of project description, traffic, cumularive impacts, water quality, noise, public services and land use impacts. The inescapable conclusion is t6at, in order to comply with CEQA, the City must prepaze a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR for the Mall Expansion and cannot approve Phase Ib until the public and the City decision makers aze fully informed of the environmental effects of the project tluough circulation of an adequate document. asvasa~i Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 3 A. The Proiect Decrintion is Inaccurate lnadequate and Misleadin~. The most blatant CEQA inadequacy in the EIR and the Addendum is the shifting and understated size of the project. It is well-established that an accurate and complete Project Description is the essential starting point for any legally adequate environmental analysis. Here, the Cenified EIR and the Addendum do not accurately describe the size and eactent of the expansion project due to inconsistencies, inaccuracies and obfuscations in presenting the size of the project. As discussed below regarding the City's FAR calculations, the project appears to have grown in scope by approximately 200;000 - 400,000 square feet based on a revisionist intetpretation of the measurement of the building area. Where the Certified EIR (and the City Zoning Code and Genera] Plan) looked at a project which would have an FAR of approximately 44, the true size of the Mall Expansion is now revealed to be over the allowed .50 FAR, based on new definitions of Crross Leasable Area which have never been applied by the City before to floor area calculations. B. The Addendum's Traffic Studv Is Limited in Scone and Le~allv Inadequate. (1) No AM Peak Hour Traffic Anabsis. The traffic study fails to analyze the weekday morning AM Peak Hour time period (7 am - 9 am), stating that the majority of retail uses would not be open during that time. Only weekday PM Peak Hour (4 pm - 6 pm) traffic was studied. (Addendum p. 114.) This omission excludes, among other things, the moming traffic impacts of eatensive grading, excavation and dirt hauling (159,352 cubic yazds of dirt must be exported from the site) that will occur during the construction phase to build Westfield's partially subterranean pazking structure neaz Baldwin. Cleazly, the AM Peak Hour analysis is needed to present the necessary "worst case analysis" to ensure all potential tra~c impacts are disclosed and mitigated. (2) No Traffic Counts Durine Racine Season. The tra~c study is flawed due to the fact that weekday PM Peak Hour (4 pm - 6 pm) traffic was studied in November and early December "when the Santa Anita Racetrack is not in season." (Addendum p. 114.) Consequently, the 2004 traffic counts upon which the Addendum's "existing" traffic conditions aze based were not taken during the busy racing season when the tr~c conditions in the viciniry aze cleazly significantly worse. In fact, these traffic counts aze even inconsistent with and more limited than the Certified EIR trafFic counts, which were taken in October, 1999 during the Oaktree racing season. The failure to count tra~c during the heaviest "worst case" traffic period is a serious flaw and appeazs to be calculated to avoid significant impacts greater than those studied in the 2000 EIR, which would require recirculation of a subsequent EIR. 489454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27; 2007 Page 4 (3) Traffic Studv Based On The VVrone Build Out Year. Analysis of the Phase ]b project is primarily limited to its projected 2008 completion year based on the "approximate 17- month" construction period; which includes six months for site preparation and grading. Such an aggressive and optimistic time frame seems unrealistic based on the history of Phase 1 a, which took over 30 months to complete (building permit issued 2/5/03 and fina]ed 9/8/OS). The impact of using an overly optimistic 2008 projected completion date is that the the Addendum avoids any consideration of the concurrent construction and traffic impacts of The Shops at Santa Anita, which, in fact is a reasonably foreseeable project. Thus, the Addendum excludes important and detailed traffic study information prepared for The Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan, which was available to the public (and thus available for incorporation into the Addendum) in October 2006. Instead, the Addendum states: Since the racetrack mal] development project does not yet have a completed traffic study and the draft generation numbers provided by the Santa Anita Pazk's traffic engineers are lower than previously assumed, the more conservative trip generation estimates from the Certified EIR were used instead. (Addendum, p. 143.) In fact, revisions were still being made to the Addendum at the time the updated traffic study for The Shops at Santa Anita was available to the public. The estimates from the Certified EIR were prepared in 1999; the omission of available up-to-date information results in an incomplete ana]ysis. (4) Inadeauate List of Related Proiects. The Addendum identifies 30 related projects in the vicinity during the development horizon yeaz of 2008 and one related project (the Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan) during the development horizon yeaz of 2015. A quick review of these ptojects shows that the list is out of date and does not include many projects in adjoining neighboring jurisdictions such as Pasadena and 5an Marino that could certainly have an impact on tra~c at the Mal] E~cpansion site. (5) Inadeauate Studv Area. The Certified EIR only studied traffic at 21 potentially impacted intersections, and the Addendum follows with 23 study intersections in its traffic analysis. In conttast, the traffic study for the 5hops at Santa Anita Specific Plan was required by the City to examine 42 intersections. Cleaily, the increased traffic congestion in the area since the Certified EIR necessitates a wider analysis to ensure than all potentially impacted intersections aze studied. Intersections at the periphery of the Addendum's study area show Levels of Service ("LOS") of "D" and "E,° suggesting that, if additional tra~c represented by the appropriate peak hout, racing season, study year and related projects were included, the impacts could likely extend further. 489454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27: 2007 Page 5 (6) Mischaracterization of "Baseline" Traffic. According to the Addendum (p.115), "Existing Conditions" aze those that existed in 2005, but based on traffic counts taken in November and early December of 2004 (but not during racing season). The Addendum's description of "Existing Conditions" being 2005 is deceptive and misleading because it implies that the Santa Anita racing season traffic during that year has been taken into account, when it was explicitly excluded from the 2004 traffic counts. Further; the Addendum claims that it "affords an opportunity to directly compare 2005 field counts to Certified EIR projection of 2005 conditions." In fact, the Cenified EIR used 2002 as the build out for the Phase 1 b projected traffic. C. ChanQed Circumstances Include Revised "Build Out" Year and Lack of Mitioation. The Certified EIR analysis was based on a two-year construction timeframe with 2002 being the worst case for build out of Phase ]b. In fact, now in 2007, the Mall Expansion described in the Addendum is not even half built and Phase 1 b is not yet started. In addition, the Phase lb construction is now expected to occur over approximately 17 months, with completion optimistically projected to 2008. Furthermore, major tra~c intersection and ramp improvements required under the Certified EIR (and anticipated to be completed by 2002) have not yet been commenced, including improvements at Rosemead and Huntington, Foothil] and Baldwin, and Baldwin and I-210. The Addendum fails to disdose that traffic impacts at these intersections remain significant and unmitigated. D. The Addendum FaiLc to Provide a Water Suppiv Studv. The Addendum is legally inadequate because, like the Certified EIR it fails to contain a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) pursuant to R'ater Code §] 0914(d). The hydrology analysis in the EIR and Addendum is limited soley to a discussion of drainage and does nothing to address water supply or adequately disclose water quality issues. This deficiency alone requires prepazation of a subsequent EIR and recirculation to the public. E. The Air Oualit~' Analvsis is Deficient. The Certified EIR did not contain an analysis of air quality impacts related to the excavation and grading needed for a 1 1/2 level underground pazking garage, let alone the ea~port of 159,352 cubic yazds of dirt from the site. The analysis of PM-10 and other emissions reported in the Addendum for this activity, including the presence of localized significant impacts is deficient. With further analysis it is likely that this impact will be a new significant impact not previously disclosed in tihe Certified EIR, which did not identify any PM-] 0 impacts. 489454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 6 F. The Noise Analvsis is Deficient The Certified EIR did not include an analysis of SdBA increases in areas that did not exceed baseline levels and contained no construction vibration analysis. The Addendum now includes a brief vibration analysis but minimizes construction noise impacts to residential uses along Baldwin based on faulty and optimistic assumptions. These assumptions - such as that construction activities would not use the noisiest equipment continuously and would include temporary sound barriers or mufflers to reduce noise-are not incorporated as mitigation measures for the Phase 1 b project. G. New Fire and Police Impacts Are Not Addressed. 1'he Addendum discusses the increase in Fire Department service calls that occutred in the fourt6 quarter of 2004 when Phase 1 a opened. The table below summarizes the significant increase in Fire Department incidents that occurred during and after the quarter (bolded in the table below) when Phase 1 a opened for business. The number of Fire Departmenf incidents at the mal] are reported in Appendix G to the Addendum. The Addendum discloses that the number of calls more than tripled afrer Phase 1 a opened. , 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3rd 4th lst 2nd 3 Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr Qtr 03 04 04 04 04 OS OS OS OS 06 06 06 - Jul & Au 40 34 39 ~8 141 106 70 67 71 57 73 44 calls calls calls calls calls calls calls calls calls calls cal]s calls This significant increase in service call volume represents another change of circumstances or new information that demonstrates that the expansion's impacts will be significantly more severe than previously analyzed, requiring further analysis, study and mitigation through a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. Similazly, the Addendum discusses the increase in Police Department service calls that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2004 when Phase la opened. According to Appendix G, the number of "events" (individual calls for service) and "cases" (events that required a fonnal police report) increased dramatically afrer Phase l a opened, as shown in the table below. Again, this new information (increased crime and police incidents at the mall) shows that the environmental impacts previously analyzed will be significant]y more severe than previously thought, requiring further review through a Supplemental EIR. 489454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 7 4th Qtr lst Qtr 2° Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th 1st Qn 2nd Qv 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr lst Qtr 03 04 ~ 04 04 Qtr 04 OS OS OS OS 06 496 4D9 I 419 465 863 855 727 765 813 675 events events events events events events events events events events 155 178 158 179 266 215 198 200 226 192 cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases cases H. Impacts to Solid Waste Disposal are Not Addressed. Citing additional capacity at the PuenCe Hills Landfill, the Addendum concludes that the solid waste impacts of Phase 1 b would be within the level analyzed in 2000 and that no significant cumulative impacts are expected. No tt~reshold of significance nor analysis is provided to justify these conclusions. In fact, the Certified EIR reported that the Genera] Plan had a significance criteria based on the City's failure to maintain waste diversion goals of 50 % after 2000. No analysis of that standard is provided and no quantification of existing recycling activity in the City or at the ma11 is provided, even though that information is available. According to current County Sanitation District information, inadequate cumulative landfil] capacity still remains in this area. For all these reasons, the Addendum is ]egally deficient under CBQA, and, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162, a Supplementa] EIR must be prepazed and circulated before the City can approve the Phase lb Mall Expansion project. The passage of seven years since the preparation of the original EIR and a vaziety of design changes, misrepresentations concerning pro}ect size, and other new information and changed circumstances, requue that a Supplemental EIR be prepared and circulated for public comment. III, GENERAL PLAN INCONSISTENCIES All new development in the City must be consistent with the City's General Plan. (See General Plan, page 6-2.) The Mall Expansion project as currently defined in the Addendum and the 5taff Report suffers from at least two major inconsistencies with the City's General Plan. First, the FAR for the Expansion project wil] exceed the mandatory General Plan limits for the site, and, second, the Mall Expansion design does not currently provide for a vehiculaz connection with the racetrack property as required. Of the two; the former is fatal for the Mall Expansion, and the latter requires, at least, that the project be resubmitted to comply with the design requirement. as9asa ~t Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 8 A. The Floor Area Ratio of the Mall Exnansion Exceeds the Maximum Aliowed Floor Area Ratio ("FAR") is a fairly straightforward concept which is improperly and inaccurately analyzed under the environmental documents and the Staff RepoR. The City's General Plan provides for a 0.50 F.qR for the Westfield Shopping Center (General Plan, Table 2-A, page 2.12'). The General Plan describes FAR as "the maximum non- residential building squaze footage that may be permitted." FAR is based on "building square footage." (General Plan, page 2.12, fn. 1.} There is no mention in the General Plan of "Crross Leasable Area" or any other reductions in gross building squaze footage. The Arcadia Zoning Code provides a definition of "Gross Floor Area." The Crross Floor Area is "the tota] dimensions on each floor as measured from the ouYSide wall." (Arcadia Municipal Code 9220.25.]). There is nothing in the Genera] Plan or any approvals for the Mal] Expansion which indicate that anything other than the Gross Floor Area shall be used to calculate the FAR. Despite this applicable Zoning Code definition and requirements of the Genera] Plan, the Addendum and the Staff Report defines the project using "Crross Leasable Area" for the numerator of the FAR calculation. Of course Westfield would prefer to use a Gross Leasable Area for purposes of calculating the FAR, since it pernuts a considerably larger project (-- one that has not been analyzed under CEQA nor approved by the City Council--) and is not permitted by the General Plan. The Addendum and the Staff Report appear to rely upon a new definition added to the Municipal Code in 2000 which defines Crross Leasable Area as: "The total floor area designed forthe tenanYs occupancy and exclusive use, induding basements, mezzanines or upper floors - expressed in squaze feet and measured from the center line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. Gross leasable azea shall also include kiosks within the common areas. It is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales azeas." The definition included further exceptions to floor azea, not applicable to this discussion. (Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9220.25.3). In fact, this new definition of Crross Leasable Area is applicable only to the pazking requirements in the Zoning Code and is not incorporated into anq General Plan or Zoning Code definition of Floor Area Ratio. Oddly, if this is not confusing enough, the Addendum even goes on to provide another numerator for the FAR calculation - another number which is violative of the City's General Plan. The Addendum (at page 7, fn. 1) discusses the lirban Land Institute's ("ULP') definition of gross leasable area which is utilized throughout the Addendum. The ULI gross leasable area ' The General Plan is internally inconsistent on tLis point, as Table 6-A limits the FAR for the Mall site tn 40 (General Plan, page 6-3). 489454 vl Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 9 is somewhat stricter than the Municipal Code definition, but still has no bearing on FAR under the General Plan. To continue the conPusion and misrepresentation to the public and the decision makers, the Addendum omits any reference to the amount of existing floor azea at the Mal] site and the amount that has already been added by the eazlier expansion, Phase 1 a. Because the floor area and the FAR aze the prime General Plan and City of Arcadia means of timiting the maximum amount of non-residential development that occurs, this failure makes the Addendum fatally inaccurate and unusable for the Phase ]b Mal] Expansion The City record, inc]uding the EIR, the Addendum and the Staff Report aze hopelessly unclear on the FAR calculation - and thus provide no usable; consistent Project Description for purposes of CEQA. However, all available information leads to the conclusion that the FAR for the Mall Expansion project is, in fact, over the permitted .50 FAR when ttie project size is calcu]ated pursuant to the General Plan and Zoning Code. B. The Proiect Presented Does Not Contain Necessarv Connections to the Racetrack The Arcadia General Plan requires a pedestrian and vehicular connection between the Mall and any new commercial development within the racetcack's southern parking lot. (General Plan, page 2-19; StafF Report, page ] 0.) At the current tune, the Mal1 plans do not contain adequate connections. In correspondence to the City in November, 2006, Westfield proposed such a connection but only contingent upon certain conditions. According to the current Staff Report, your staff has found the proposed (conditional) vehicular connection to be inadequate and recommends a condition req"'*+ng a new design. The issue of General Plan consistency is fundamental and adequate plans addressing the General Plan design requirement must be publicly presented. As such, the Phase lb proposal continues to be inconsistent with the General Plan on the urban design requuement of connections to the racetrack. Thus the project cannot be approved without resubmitted plans or an amendment to the General Plan. as~asa ~~ Chair and Members of the Planning Commission February 27, 2007 Page 10 IV. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons the City is compelled to deny the Mall Expansion at this time and to require a Supplemental EIR to study all current potential impacts, circulate the new CEQA document for public review, and provide accurate and complete information to both the public and the decision-makers. Only after such compliance with CEQA and the City's own General Plan can the Mall Expansion project proceed. Very truly yours, ~ Patricia L. Glaser of CHRISTENSEN, GLASER, FINK, JACOBS, WEIL & SHAPIRO, LLP 469454 v! .-----. ~: , __.,. ~~r~= :.~~~~. .: ~ ..~r,Trr. June 9; 200b Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive P. 0. Box 60021 Arcadia, Califomia 91066 Re: Westfield Shopping Center - Discount Store and Further Development and Expansion Deaz Don: We understand that in the neaz future, Westfield may be re-submitting its applications for further development and expansion of the Santa Anita Shoppingtown mall, formerly known as the Fashion Park mall. Based on our review of prior Westfield analyses and approvals, we have significant concems about the entitlement process and environmental review that Westfieid will be requesting for such development and expansion. We know very little about Westfield's overall expansion plans (because those plans have not been made public) but Westfield has confumed to the Ciry of Arcadia its intent to establish a lazge discount merchandise store (believed to be a Target store) in the former Robinsons May departmeni store building or on its site. In addition to this discount store conversion, we 6elieve that Westfield proposes to add approximately 180,DD0 squaze feet of gross building azea in an open-air mall situated atop a new pazking structure, the majority of which would be subterranean. Due to the sloping topography at the locauon of the expansion, a portion of the parking structure would be above grade (a part of one level), with the majority of the pazking structure (a portion of the first level and all of the second and third levels) below grade. Tlus expansion would be located in the southwesterly portion of the VJestfield property, in the lower and upper portions of the parking lot that is bounded by Macy's and the mall building on the east, Nordstrom's on the north and surface pazking to the wes? and south. Along with the Santa Anita Companies, our company has a concern aboui the introduction of a lazge discount merchandise store into what is supposed to be a high quality regional shopping center with department stores, and the ad~~erse effects that would be generated by such a department store conversion related to the increased pazking demands, traffic and related impacts (discussed below). We also hzve z sttong int;r~st in ensuring the quality operation and mitigauon by R'estfield of any further development and that Westfieid account for the development on its site that has already occurred, including the fulfillment of conditions of approval, mitigation measures, and promises made when it received its prior approvais. We 101 TFIE GHOV[ ~RIVE • LOS ANGELES, C< 9U"!3fi • T 32~.JO0.8iOG • F i23.900.Ff01 • W`NW.CAP.U504FFIL~ATE~.COM i ~ believe that many residents and businesses share our interest in having Westfield's expansion plans be open to full public scrutiny so that it can be held responsible for mitigating the unpacts that new discount center and further shopping center development will cause. To accomplish this, we would aslc the City to exercise the same d~ttailed scrutiny and assessment of Westfield's proposed department store conversion and expansion analyses and plans that it has undertalcen foc our proposed $pecific Plan development. Based on our understanding of Westfield's proposed discount store and other mall development plans, as set forth above, we have set forth below the entitlement and environmental acrions, analyses, studies and imdings that the City of Arcadia should require as it assesses Westfield's new projects. ENTITLEMENT APPROVALS 1. General Plan Amendment. Westfield needs a General Plan amendment for any additional ma1] development. On September 5, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6198, in Case No. GP 99-001, which approved a General Plan amendment that Westfield had sought "to change the General Plan Land Use designaGon in the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.40 to 0.50 for the Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita." Although the City Council amended Table 2-A of the General Plan (see Page 2.12) for the mall to permit a"0.50 FAR, including the Westfield Shopping Center," it did not, however, amend the Implementation and Monitoring section of the General Plan (in Chapter 6) for the Westfield mall, on Page 6-2, which contains Table 6-A whose provisions continue to limit the ma~cimum intensiTy of development on the mall site to a 0.40 FAR, whether iYs a new use or an expansion. Table 6-A of the Ciry's General Plan, on Page 6- 2, currently reads as follows: All development projects will be reviewed to determine whether proposed land uses are consistent with the site's General Plan Land Use designation. An initial determination can be made by compazing the proposed land use with the specific location on the General Plan Land Use Map. Devel~ment proiects whether new or exoansions to - -- '--~:__...~ --- .r__ GAW44i4 wuba we ..•....._--_ -. _. . General Plan land use mav and as listed below. Development intensities outlined in the General Plan Land Use Element may be permitted only iJ the proposed project is consistent with all relevant policies, review criteria, and approach contained in the General Plan and all relevant standazds contained in the Developmeni Review Program. [Emphasis Added] ~ Table 6-A - General Plan Desi;nations Designafion Description Average Populafion Intensity Max.Intensity Commercisl Commercial Provides appropriately located NA D3D FAR for (~~ areas ior the general commercial the southerly and professional office needs of race track the azea residents, workers and parking lot, visitors. Appropriate uses include 0.40 FAR for a range of common retail and the Fashion personal service uses, specialty Park mall and retail, offices, auto related uses, 0.50 FAR for financial institutions, and hotels other properties. and motels. [Emphasis Added] In Resolution No. 6198, the City Council fomid, in Section 1, that ihe 0.40 FAR General Plan designation would only pernvt an "additiona1300,000+ sq. ft." on the Westfield mall site. This number was incorrect. According to the General Plan (see Page 2.12), FAR "is measured by dividing building squaze footage by net lot area exisung prior to development." Given the Westfield mall site's 80.63 acres, the maximum nonresidential building squaze footage that could be developed at a 0.40 FAR was and is 1,404,896 squaze feet (80.63 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 3,512,242 sq. ft; 3,5 L,242 sq. ft. x 0.40 FAR = 1,404,896 sq. ft.) According to Table 2-2 in the Final EIR certified by the Ciry Council on September 5, 2000, the gross building as~a that existed on the mall site in 2000 was 1,197,100 sq. ft., which resulted in an FAR of 034 (1,197,100 sq. ft. + 3,512,242 sq. ft. = 0.34 FAR). In August 2001 and in March 2002, the City Council approved, respectively, Resolurion Nos. 6245 and 6289 for a 276,000 squaze foot 8xpansion to the mall which would increase the gross floor area to 1,473,100 squaze feet (1,197,100 sq. fr. + 276,000 sq. f[. '=1,473,1 DO sq. ft,) which results in an FAR for the ma11 of apprmtimately 0.42 (1,473,1 DO sq. ft. = 3,512,242 sq. ft. = 0.419 FAR). Consequently, since the maximum intensity permitted under the General Plan provisions quoted above has already been exceeded, any further development or expansion of the Westfield mall would also exceed the maximum intensity permitted by Chapter 6 of the General P1an and would reauire a General Plan amendment. 2. Zone Chanee. Westfield's plan to re-develop or convert the existing Robinsons May department store building or site into some kind of discount merchandise store would significantly change the nature and character of the mall from that which the existing zoning permits and would therefore require a zone change. A zone change would be required for such because the terms of City Council Resolution No. 6199 Iimit the use of the mall property to the continued development and use "only for a high quality regional shopping center with department stores, together with supplementary specialty shops and facilifies including restaurants, multi-plex theater(s), a food market or markets and not more than two (2) ~ ~~~__ automobile convenience centers." A discount store would not attract clientele that would contribute to the definition of a regional shopping center as "high quality." The type of merchandise sold by a discounter does not compare to the type of inerchandise typically sold by department stores. A discount retail store usually has stand-alone qualities compared to other shopping center stores so that customers who would shop at such a store might not ordinarily shop during the same Bip at a fine jeweler or a high-end clothing store, such as Nordstrom, thereby changing previous environmental analyses and assumgtions. Shopping for dog food, automotive supplies and boxed wine does not contribute to a high qualiTy regional shopping ceater and would generate significantly more traffic because very few trips would be shared between a discaunt store and the other shopping cen4er stores. Many of the discount store shoppers would not shop at the other mall stores. 5ince a discount store would not be perrnitted under the zoning established by Ordinance No. 2136 and Resolution No. 6199, a zone change in the form of an amendment to Resolution No. 6199 would be required for any such use. 3. Preliminarv Plan Approval. Resolution No. 6199 requires all preluninary site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs for any development on the mall property to be submitted to the Development Services Department and subjected to design review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Counci] following a public hearing. Westfield's plans for conversioo of a departinent store to a discount store must be subjected to such discretionary review and approval. 4, Architectural Design Review. The zoning of the mall property requiies an Architectural Desi~n Review for any new development. Any conversion of a department store into a discount store that involves issuance of a building permit, as well as exterior alterations, would have to go through Architectural Design Review under AMC Section 9295.1. Because the project would involve a building ia excess of 40,000 square feet, it is subject to design review by the Planning Commission. See AMC Section 9295.7(C). Additionally, the ma1P s classification within the D zone also requires compliance with applicable design regulations. See AMC Section 9272.2.1. 5. Parkin Modification or Variance. Since a discount store would not be a high quality shopping center use, the pazking requirements of the AMC foi "Other Permitted Uses" would apply, which specify a pazking requirement of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor azea. See AMC Section 9269.5. A pazking study would be necessary. If Westfield could not provide an adequate number of parking spaces per Code, it would need to file a modification permit or variance relating to required pazking. In order to justify a modification from Code standazds, findings would need to be made. 5ee AMC Section 9292,1.4(11). II. ENVIRONMENTAL AI~TAL1'SES 6. Subseauent Environmental Impact Renort. Each of the foregoing discretionary approvals requires the City to conduct an environmental review of ihe potentially significant impacts that would result from any new mall development (including a conversion from departrnent store to discount store) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): We understand that Westfield has proposed that this review be conducted through an Addendum to its 6-yeaz old Program EIR that was certified on September 5, 2000 in order to avoid pnblic review and comment. However, an Addendum would not be appropriate under CEQA given the changes to the project aaalyzed in R%estfield's 2000 Program EIR, the changed circumstances that now l._._. ~l'~ exist, the new information that has come to light, and the avoidance of public scrutiny. A new EIR would be required to address the following issues: (a) Proiect Descrintion. Table 2.2 of the EIR indicates that Westfield proposed to change the pemutted FAR of the ma11 from 0.40 to 0.50. When the EIR was certified, the existing gross building area (GBA) of the mall was 1,197,100 square feet, and the GLA was 922,451 square feet. The EIR analyzed the addition of a GBA of 690,000 square feet and a GLA of 600,000 square feet. Of the square footages, 534,75~ GBA sf and 465,000 GLA sf were devoted to retail shops and anchor stores, 126,500 GBA sf and 110,000 GLA sf devoted to the theaters, 23,000 GBA sf and 20,000 GLA devoted to freesianding restaurants/retail and 5,750 GBA sf and 5,000 GLA sf devoted to the mall food court. Despite this table, the EIR and its analyses obfuscated the size of the project by often referring to the projecYs GLA numbers instead of the FAR numbers required by the General Plan. As noted above, a 0.40 FAR would allow 1,404,896 squaze feet of GBA and a 0.50 FAR would allow a maximum of 1,756,121 square feet of GBA, but the 2000 EIR's project description indicates that the proposed project will total 1,887,100 squaze feet, which would be inconsistent with the General Plan (and would be more than even the maximum entitlement for the property designated in Table 2-A of the General Plan). It is also not clear whether the expansion would fal] within Area 2 in Exhibit 2-5 of the previous EIR whicb depicu the location of the "Westside Expansion Area." If the expansion occurs outside the boundary of this area, then this was not fully analyzed in the previous EIR, and there would be potentially significant new aesthetics, air quality, geological and noise impacts. Moving the project outside this area represents a change that was not previously analyzed and may create potentially significant environmental effects with regard to land use, geology, noise and air, as the mall would be moving closer to residences to the wes[. Additionally, changing the boundaries of the Westside Expansion Area may involve height and massing impacts. It is also clear fhat Westfield cannot se~ment or sever the Robinsons May/discount store conversion from its other mall expansion plans, since both development projects would need to have their environmental impacts analyzed in one environmental review document. While the conversion to a discount retail store may not create any additional floor area, it would be a more intensive use of the land with more traffiq and as a result, more pazking, air quality and noise problems. A discount retail store would have many more customers (and possibly workers) than a department store, and this would create new environmental impacts. Pazking required for a discount store would 6e higher than current Code requirements and higher than the pazking threshold analyzed in the 2000 Westfield EIR. The environmental analysis for the mall expansion, including traffic and pazking analyses, would need to include an analysis of the discount retail store conversion. The prior EIR did not discuss any modifications or changes to the existing mall or stores such as a conversion of a 165,000 square foot depanmen: store into a discount retailerlsuperstore and was entirely silent on modifications to its existing mall structure. The changes to the Robinsons May store would involve more than just interior or exterior alterations such as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, It is likely that massive remodeling and reconstruction would be necessary to accommodate a discount retail store since such stores typically have a lunited number of floor plans. ~ (b) Phasine and Build Out Yeaz. The EIR states that "no development phasing plan has been submitted; howevei, the applicant has indicated that this project could be completed in its enrirety within two yeazs after project approval." See EIR page 2-12. The EIR does in fact utilize a phasing plan. For example, Traffic Mitigation Measure 2 states that Phase 1 consists of "up to 400,000 squaze ieet GLA" and Traffic Mirigation Nfeasure 3 states Phase 2 consists of "up to 600,000 square feet of GLA." See EIR page 4-131. Further, environmental impacts aze analyzed at various years, including 2002 (air, noise, traffic), 2015 (traffic, sewer service), 2020 (noise), and some sections of the EIR do not reveal the build out yeaz (public services, electrical service, gas service, water service, and solid wasce disposal). The build out year for the project must be consistent and all of the impacts reanalyzed if only for this one reason. Clearly, the project was not completed by 2002, as was contemplated in the project description, and the change to a different build out year represents a significant change that may cTeate new si~mificant impacts. For example, the EIR states that "although final buildout and occupancy of the entire 600,000 squaze feet expansion may not occur until beyond 2002, this yeaz was used as a worst-case assumprion." 5ee EIR page 430. It is not clear why 2002 was chosen as a worst- case assumption when the EIR cleazly contemplated at least two phases of development. Environmental condiuons often worsen with time, as is appazent with increased trafFie congestion, and using a 2002 build out yeaz could underestimate worst-case impacts for subsequent phase(s) of the expansion. (c) Scop°d Out Environmental Issues. The EIR did not examine cultural resources, hazards and ha7ardous materials, hydrology and water quality, population and housing, recreation, or biological resources. Of these topics, ihere may be potentially significant environmental unpacts related to Westfield's development plans as follows: (i) Cultural Resources. The project site was once a part of the Santa Anita Pazk, and the expansion site may have also once been the location of bazracks during World War II as a Japanese Assembly Center and it is believed that the prehistoric Gabrielino village of `Aluupkenga' was located near the mall. Yet, there has been no anaiysis of these issues in the EIR and it is not clear whet6er the project would comply with recent state law regarding Indian sites. Further, there has been no analysis of whether the project would disturb any human remains. (ii) Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A records review performed.in a Phase I Envuonmental Site Assessment ("Phase I") for the adjacent Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR, indicates that several unmapped locations at the mall may have contributed to a release of hazazdous substances or petroleum hydrocazbons to the soil andlor groundwater at or neaz the general vicinity of the mall. At 231 Fashion Pazk, Santa :Snita Fashion Park, IX Anita Association - a California Limited Partriership, Hahn Property Management Corporation, and Goodyeaz Auto Service are ]isted as unmapped sites under the American Society for Testing Materials ("ATSM") standard for the regulatory agency databases. These facilities are listed in flie HAZNET database (a database exiracted from the copies of hazardous waste manifests received each yeaz by the Caliiornia Department of Toxic Subscances Con~ol ("DTSC"). The previous EIR does not reveal whether there has been any analysis of hazazds and hazardous materials, There is no disclosure of whether the project is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 5ection 65962.5. Based on the Phase 1 performed for the Santa Anita Pazk Specific Plan, the ma11 is listed on the ~ HAZNET database, and it is our understanding that the HAZNET database includes hazac dous material sites oompiled pursuant to Government Code Sec6on 65962.5. As a result, the expansion could potentially create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and the previous EIR did not analyze these or any related issues. There has been no analysis of whether the project would emit hazazdous emissions or handle acutely hazazdous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school even tnough it appears that Holy Angels school and other sensitive receptors, including senioz condominiums and a convalescent home, are all within one-quarter mile of the projeci site. Furthec, the previous EIR did not analyae whether the project would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, an important consideration given its proximity to the City's fiTe station. (iii) H dy rology and Water Ouali . The previous EIR had minimal amounts of analysis and disclosure regarding hydrology and water quality and included a short section on Water 5ervice in the Utilities section. The previous EIR used a significance threshold frorn the City's General Plan EIR that states that the effects of a proposed project on water supply are considered to be significant if they will result in the depletion of groundwater supplies beyond the "safe yield" designafed by the Main San Gabriel Water Master or adjudicated 1'units within the Raymond Basin. The CEQA Guidelines in Appendix G have a number of thresholds that were simply not analyzed to any degree in the previous EIR. The previous EIR did not perform e water supply assessment {"WSA") or provide a water verificafion letter for the 600,000 square foot expansion. A WSA is required for "... a project for which a notice of preparation is submitted on or after January 1, 1996." See Water Code Section 10914(d). A WSA would be required to analyze the water supply for the proposed expansion since (1) the notice of preparation was submitted after January 1, 1996 and (2) there was no WSA conducted for the approval of the 600,OD0 square foot expansion. Westfield's proposed development would require a W5A since it is part of the same 600,000 expansion for which there has not yet been a required WSA. (iv) Ponulation and Housin~. While the previous EIR does not have sepazate sections on population and housing, the land use consistency analysis does review SCAG forecasts for population. The SCAG forecasts utilized in the previous EIR analyzed impacts at a regional level and a local level. The subregional level was based on the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Subregional Forecasts, and the local forecasts were based on the SCAG projections for the City of Arcadia. Nevertheless, there is no analysis regarding the projecYs impacts on population and housing based on the CEQA Guidelines' thresholds relating to population and housing. As such, the expansion's impacts have not been adequately analyzed and the cumulative impacts have not been adequately analyzed eithez. (v) Recreation. There was no analysis on whether the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional pazks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deteriorarion of the facility would occur or be accelerated, or whether the project includes zscreational facilities oT requires the construcrion or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (vi) BioloP+r.al Resources, ~ile the expansion would occur in the mall parking lot, the EIR does not describe the biological resources that are present there, including ~ whether there aze any plants, hedges, trees or other forms of landscaping. In particulaz, migratory avian species may [ive or nest within the project site. (d) Aesthetics. The previous EIR had little to no analysis regarding aesthetics, including height, design and massing. As a result; any subsequent project at the mall would represent substantial change in that the previous EIR merely proposed an envelope of development, and the City would need to analyze the height, aesthetics and massing whicn would require major additions of the previous EIR potentially significant effects ralating to aesthetics, light and glaze. The previous EIR eoncludes that "although azchitectural drawings showing the proposed building design and heights have not been submitted, the proposed project is not expected to significantly change the visua] character of the site." See EIR page 4-8. This was a premature conclusion since the architectural detailing was not known at the time the EIR was approved. Without receiving drawings and renderings that wou3d indicate the architectural design and appearance of the expansion, the visual impact of the expansion could be potentially significant as there may be a substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Analysis of the current mall expansion plan needs to occur to determine whether there would be a potentially significant change in the visual chazacter of the site. Additionally, the previous EIR states that "the area of greatest concern would be views of the site from the existing multiple family residences located along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive." See EIR, page 49. HoweveT, the EIR states that "the potential expansion of the ma1] or major departrnent stores to the wes[ would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts." 3ee EIR, page 4-9. This bald assertion lacks support since the elevation of the expansion area is at least fifteen feet higher than the elevatioi~ of the adjacent Nordstrom's. As a result, the expansion would be highly visible and potentially more visible from "the azea of greatest concern." There must be substantive analysis in the environmental review documenT of this issue as the project may substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Regarding light and glaze, the EIR minimally analyzes the impacts of light and glaze stating that "... very little additional lighting will be associated with the proposed expansion." See EIR page 4-15. As the "area of greatest concern" is adjacent to the proposed expansion of the mall, there has been no analysis of the increase in headlights coming in and out of driveways, increased security lighting, or increased building illumination; all these increased lighting sources would come closer to existing sensitive uses, yet there has been no analysis as to the impacts on sensitive uses. The lighting may create a significant impact ihat may substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. In fact, the homeowners across the street have indicated that such a significant impact has already occurred. This would represent a potentially new significant impact created as a result of the project requiring a subsequent EIR to analyze and mitigate light and glaze impacts. Regazding cumulative impacts, the EIR states that "no significant impacts to the aesthetic character of the project azea or to existing visual resources is anticipated from project implementation." See EIR page 4-15, This conclusion cannot be reached since the EIR did not analyze any azchitectural drawings or plans. Furthex, there was no discussion regazding the azchitectural compatioiliry between the proposed expansion and the existing and surrounding uses. The EIR presents a mostly deferred aesthetics analysis of this issue that is not appropriate now considering that there could be potentially significant aesthelic impacts related to the expansion. Additionally, the mitigation measures that the EIR proposes do not give any indication as to how they mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts• For example, requiring that the Development Servibes Departinent review and approve the project's landscape plans prior to issuance of ~ building permits does not indicate how significant impacts would be mitigated. Further, requiring t1~at all site plans and azehitectural building elevations be submitced to tha Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's Architectural Design Review Process does not mifigate aesthedc impacts. See EIR page 4-17. Additionally, there is nothing in the mitigation measures restricting the height or brightness of lights, or the protection of the views of the San Czabriel Mountains. With the expansion, potentially significant impacts relating to degradation of !he existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings may occur, and these would need to be analyzed since the height, design, massing, location, impact on the San Gabriel Mountains, li~ht and glare may create significant impacts. (e) Air uali . The previous EIR analyzed above-ground multi-level paztcing structures, but there is nothing in the previous EIR regarding subterranean parking shvctures. See EIR page 2-8. An underground pazking structure presents a subs[antial change which would require major addifions to the previous EIR. Potentially new significant effects, such as geological and air quality impacts may be much more significant because of the substantial increase in grading involved. These project changes would create significant environmental impacts that were not previously analyzed in the EIR, and there would likely be a need for new mitigation measures that were not present in the prior EIR For examp]e, the amount of grading necessary for the new subterranean pazking gazage would create potenfialty new significant environmental impaets that would require mitigation foc eonstruction aic, construction noise and geological impacts. For project construction, the EIR did not indicate that there would be any significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. To the contrary, the construction of any mall expansion would create a new significant unpact that was not previously analyzed in the EIR. The air quality anatysis assumed that the construction area would be limited to only four (4) acres on a peak disturbance day. See EIR page 4-28. The EIR does not give support for the assumption that soil disturbance activities would be limited to only four (4) acres. Even assuming that the expansion would occur in the westerly section of the mall property, construction may be necessary over a lazger area As a result, the PM-10 and other air quality impacts may be more savere and may cause the pro}ect to violate any air quality standard oi contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quaiity violation. As the project proposes a substantial change with the introduclion of a subterranean parking gazage, there will be more grading than that analyzed in the EIR. More g:ading will result in more PM-10, NOx and CO that may create potentially significant environmental effects. Because of the change in the project, there may be a potentially sio ificant conflict with or obstruction of the implementation of the applieable air quality plan, a violation of any air quality standard or substantial contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or may result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, such as PM-10, for wtrich the project region is in non-attainment; the change in pTO}ect may cause the construction celated emissions thresholds to be exceeded. It is almost impossible to have a significant project in Southern California without significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Additionally, the EIR does not have an analysis of al] the project construcuon related emissions. While the soil disturbance azea and the diesel powered equipment fleet operating on four (4) acres were analyzed, there was no table or analysis regazding air qualiTy impacts if both soil disturbance and diese] powered equipment were operating at the same time; this may ereate additional new significant impacts for the project. Further, other construction activities, such as applying coatings or finishing to the project may occur at the same time as the - other construction activities; yet there was no analysis and multiple construction activiries could potentia2ly result in substantially more severe significant air quality effects, In addition, the EIR states that application of more than 37,~ gallons of paint would cause the ROG emission threshold of 75 pounds per day to be exceeded, but the EIR did not indicaie how much paint would be used or the tota] emissions of ROG. See EIR page 4-29. The EIR admits that the ROG emissions would be exceeded because it states that "maintaining a less than significant threshold entails use of building materials that aze pre-coated under factory conditions, or limiting the amount of paint and other VOC-containing compounds applied on a given day." 5ee EIR page 4-29, Howevex, no mifigation measure guarantees that the mall would use only "pre-coated under factory conditions" paint, or limits the amount of paint and other VOGcontaining compounds on a given day. As a result, construction-related emissions for ROG/VOC would exceed significance thresholds even though the EIR did not explicitly disclose this construction- related air quality impact. CEQA does not allow the preparation of an Addendum if there are new significant impacts that were not analyzed in a prior EIR. An expansion and conversion to discount sWre operations will generate the need for more pazking, a significant amount of grading wil] be necessary for the underground pazking gazage which was not previously analyzed, and that grading will create significant construction-related air quality impacts. Further, construc&on may occur over an area lazger than four acres, and different phases of construction may occur simultaneously, Additional]y, applying paint, stains, and other coatings to the building will create ROG emissions in amounts that would exceed AQMD's thresholds, as there is no mitigation measure to restrict their application. Additionally, the different phases of cons~uction (i.e. grading, 6uilding construction and applying paint and stains) may occur simultaneously which could potentiaIly create significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Because of the lazge number of new construction-related air quality significant impacts that couid occur, an Addendum would not be appropriate pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1 ~ 162(a)(3)(A) because "the proj ect will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration." By failing to call the isnpacts significant in the prior EIR and presenting a significantly changed project that proposes a subterranesn garage that would create new significant air quality impacts, a subsequent EIR would be necessary to anaiyze and mitigate these new significant unpacts: The Air Quality section discusses asbestos-containing materials. It is not clear whether any portion of the Robinsons May department store building or other structures would need to be demolished as part of Westfield's development plans. While an asbestos analysis belongs in the EIR, it should occur in the Hazards section, which does not exist in the EIR, and not in the Air QualiTy section, For the operational air quality impacts, the analysis only analyzed the weekday vehicle trips even though the weekend vehicle trips were to be over 20 percent higher. See EIR page 4-29. Adding the emissions from over 20 percent more vehicles generated by discount store uses and mall expansion may cause the emissions to exceed significance thresholds; this may create new significant impacts that would need to be analyzed and mirigated in a su6sequent EIR. 10 r~'= Another concem is that the air analysis also assumed a 2002 build out year for the project although other sections of the EIR examined Yeaz 2015. The 2002 date was incorrect as on7y about one-third of the proposed expansion has occurred even though it is now 2006. ~qually so, tne 2D15 date may be entirely speculative. The build out year for the project must be consistent and all of the impacts reanalyzed if only for this one reason. The EIR also has a strange analysis that utilizes the General Plan build ou_ level and analyzed the air qualiry impacts of the incremental increase in pollutants above the level allowed by the General P1an. See EIR page 4-31. The General Plan build out should not be the baseline unless the mall build out occws subsequent to that time. ( fl Geoloev and Soils. As with other impact areas, the EIR does not utilize CEQA Guidelines Appendix G to determine thresholds of significance with regard to analysis of geology and soils impacts. The EIR did not examine thresholds related to rupture of z Imown earthquake fault or if the project is located on expansive soil. The EIR states that the site has previously been graded, and that excavation of paving and soil would be limited. "The site has previously been graded as part of consh'uction of the existing ma11. As a result, project related grading wil] be limited to excavation of paving and soil to create finished building pads.... Because the site is already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil would be minimal during the construction phase of the proposed projeci." 5ee EIR page 4-41. There will be a significant amount of grading for the expansion because the bu11c of the parking structwe will be subterranean. This presents a significant change in the project that would potentially cause new significant environmental impacts that were not analyzed in the prior EIR. (g) Land Use and Plannin¢. Once again the EIR does not utilize the fl~resholds of significance from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and omits the threshold relating to conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation. If such a threshold analysis had been performed, then the projecYs inconsistency with the General Plan's chapter on Implementation and Monitoring would have been highlighted. The ma1Ps existing 1,197,100 square feet witt~ the addition of 690,000 squaze feet would exceed the maximum nonresidential density that would be allowed under both a 0.40 FAR(1,404,896 squaze feet) and a ~.50 FAR (1,756,121 squaze feet). Consequently, even if the City had amended the portion of the General Plan in Chapter 6 that limits development to 0.40 FAR (which it did not do), the proposed project totaling 1,887,100 square feet would still be inconsistent with the General Plan as amended. In addition, the EIR states that for the westerly expansion of the mall "no significant land use impacts are anticipated due to the exisung 6- to 8-foot landscaped berm and the approximately 20 foot elevadon differential betv/een the building pad and the existing residences." See EIR page 4-52. The EIR does not provide the required analysis to support this conclusion. The expansion may create or exacerbate aesthetic, light, shadowing and noise impacts on the residences to the west; and the level of detail present in the EIR does not support a conclusion fnat there would be no significant unpacts; becanse of the project change that would bring the open air mall close: to the residences to the west, there may be new signincant impacts. Further, while there may be a 6- to 8-foot wide landscaped buffer, there is no indication as to why this buffer would be sufFicient to mitigate pot~ntially significant impacts. The EIR's coiulicUcompatibility analysis with regazd to the General Plan does not perform a policy by policy analysis. While the various sections of the General Plan are 11 ~((((~, __ summarily analyzed, there is no policy by policy analysis that is typical in an EIR. In fne Environmental Resources - Air Quality section, the EIR states that the 600,000 square foot exoansion "... exceeds the square footage allowed under the adopted General Plan by approximately 300,000 square feet. As a result, the proposed project exSeedsahe 4 55] Even development assumed in the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).' p B th~ugh there is an apparent conflict with the AQMP; the EIR stated that no significant 1and use impacts aze anticipated. See EIR page 4-71. This should have been analyzed in the Au Quality section of the EIR, and the expansion may present a new significant and unavoidable environmental impact as it is not clear whether the development assumed in the AQMP has been modified to reflect the additional square footage of the mall. The EIR states that the 600,000 square foot expansion would be consistent with RCPG policy 3.03 which relates to "the liming, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems..." used by SCAG to implement the region s growth policies, but includes no analysis. See EIR page 4-58. For any expansion, analysis of the public facilities, utility systems and transportation systems would be necessary, notjust conclusory statements regazding their availabiliry. (h) Noise. Increases in noise levels above 5 dBA above baseline levels in azeas not exceeding ambient noise standazds would be a potential significant noise increase, yet the EIR does not indicate that a 5 dBA noise increase in baseline noise levels could be a significant noise increase. Traffic and operations generated by the project may create noise above 5 dBA in areas not exceeding ambient noise standazds, and this couid cause u new significant environmental impact. Furthez, there was no analysis of construction noise impacts on people or horses at Santa Anita Pazk. People and horses at Santa Anita Pazk could be exposed to potentiatly significant unpacts, and an analysis would be required in any subsequent environmental review document. Additionally, the EIR did not have a construction vibration impacts analysis. With regard to operational impacts, the noise study examined existing conditions, 2002 conditions, as well as 2020 conditions, Accarding to the 2020 analysis, there was a three dB(A) noise increase along Driveway A east of Baidwin Avenue (E) which would increase the dB(A) level above the 65 dB(A) threshold for a significant impact. Yet, the EIR does not identify this noise increase as a significant impact, stating "such small incremental inereases will not expose any new noise- sensirive uses to excessive (>65 dB CNEL) [sic] not already experiencing somewhat elevated levels." See EIR page 4-88. This is simply not accurate since there was one receptor looation with a significant impact of a 3.0 dB(A) increase above 65 dB(A). (i) Public 5ervices - Fiie Protecrion. The EIR indicates that ihe City's costs to maintain equipment and appazatus and to train and equip fue protection and pazamedic personnel would increase, but the language in the EIR is not cleaz as to whether there would be a potentially significant imoact. There aze no mitigation measures for non-cumulative impacts on fire protection services. As the City well knows, after the partiat expansion of the mall, the number of false fire alarms and service calls to the mall have increased dramatically. This increase in demand for services would represent new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonabie diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete that the project would have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR The subsequent environmental revie~~ will 12 fl~ need to address the potentially significant demands on fire protection and pazamedic services. Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds should be used, (j) Public Services - Police Protection. Once again, the EIR uses thresholds from tre General Plan EIR which do not maich up exactly with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds. The EIR indicates that the thresholds of sigruficance would be if the City were unable to maintain (1) a five minute response time for emergency calls with approximately 40 percent of an officer's work day spent in preventative patrol, and (2) adequate police and private security, if needed, as determined by the Arcadia Police Department for non-residential development. See EIR page 4-92. The EIR indicates that prior to expansion, the mall comprised approximately 22 percent of the total crime reporis filed in the City, and that the expansion would use approximately 12 percent more of the police department's resources. Instead of analyzing the actual impaots on police protection services in the City, the EIR engages in deferred analysis, stating "ful] development wi11 6e required before the total impact can be assessed, however, it is likely that the department may require the addition of some personnel (sworn police officeis and non-support staff)." 5ee EIR page 4-93, Because there has already been a significant partial build out of the mall expansion, more information is now available and the existing police service impacts can be used to help estimate the impacts that further mall expansion would create. (k) Transoortation/Circulation. The previous EIR ideniified only one intersection with a Level of Service ("LOS") of E or F, but current traffic analyses of existing conditions identify a L05 of E or F at many intersections surrounding the maiL For the number of intersections that would be impacted by increased traffic generated b}' ~e discount store operations and fwther mall expansion that were not examined in the previous EIR, we do not have the information necessary to ascertain the LOS at the intersections that were not exarnined in tt~e previous EIR at the time the previous EIR~was certified. At the very least, we do know that the addition of the projecYs traffic to the surrounding roadways would cause additional significant environmental unpacts that were not previously identified. With the mall expansion, there are a number of changed circumstances which indicate the expansion would have new significant and unavoidable impacts, especially as it relates to the trafFic conditions. Because of the number of related projects and changed environmental conditions, the project would create new or more severe environmental impaots not just with traffic, but also with impacts relating to air quality, noise, and public services. T'he Transportation/Circulation section of the EIR was based on a traffic study performed in February 2000 by Pazsons Transportation Group, Inc. A new traffic study would be necessary to (1) accurately reflect the existing baseline environmental conditions, (2) measure the environmental impacts of the project, and (3) assess the cumulative related project impacts. Because of the change in circumstances related to traffic conditions there would be new significant impacts. For exarnple, the installation of the Dave and Busters in the portion of the expansion that has already occurred has caused significant pazking and traffic problems at the mall. Parking at the mall for Dave and Busters simply does not work and there is inadequate capacity to accommodate all the uses at the mall as a result of the portion of the expansian already constructed. The inadequate pazking capacity as a result of Dave and Busters represents a new significant environmental impact that was not analyzed in the prior EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), the inadequate pazking and general trafnc problems at 13 (lll~:r tne mall created by Dave and Busters represents "new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified" that shows `".he project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR." Problems with the existing Transportation/Circulation secrion of the EIR include the following: • Only P.M. peak hour trips were counted. Any expansion to the mall would have A.M. peak hour uips as well. Even though t1~e A.M. peak trips generated may not be as many as those generated for the P.M. time period, there will nevertheless be A.M. trips generated that could create an environmental impact. • According to EIR page 4-98 traf6c counts were performed only on one day, October 7, 1999 and not performed on several days. This throws into question the accuracy of the traffic study num6ers. • Weekend peak hour trips were not analyzed. On page 4-29 of EIR it was disclosed that weekend peak hour trips would generate over 20 percent more trips than P.M. weekday trips, yet the environmental impacts of these trips were not analyzed. • Only 21 intersections were chosen for ana]ysis and many key intersections were omitted from analysis. Considering that prior to mitigation at ]east 11 of the 21 intersections had significant and unavoidable impacts prior to mitigation, we suspect that the project would significantly impact more intersectiona There is no information as to the methodology used to determine which intersections were analyzed. • The EIR did not analyze conslruction traffic impacts or the construction impacts on pazking at the mall. • The trip distribution pattern "... was developed based on the mazket research conducted by Kirtland Consulting, and was approved by the City." An outdated mazket research may not be the most appropriate way to ascertain the impacts related to trip distribution for any mall expansion, particularly when such mazket study did not contemplate a lazge discount merchandise store. • The CMP analysis with regazd to Rosemead Boulevard is weak and conlsadictory. At one point, the EIR states that mitigation at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive would mitigate traffic unpacts to a level less than significant, yet in the next pazagraph, the EIR states that no project related traffic would be carried on Rosemead Bouievazd. See EIR page 4-111. • For the first phase of expansion (up to 400,000 square feet GL.A), the project applicant either had to complete or provide a bond for the completion of improvements, prior to building parmit issuance, for only three intersections. Those three intersections had significant impacts at the 2002 future conditions, but it is now 2D06 and those unprovements have not been completed. • For the second phase of expansion, the project applicant either had to complete or bond for the completion of the remaining mitigadon measuras. If the project applicant had to bond for the unprovements, there is nothing to compel the City to actually build the improvements so that there would actually be mitigation of significant u~affie impacts. See EIR page 4131. 14 fr~ The study does not disclose, or analyze any of the changes to the on-site circulation system, including pedestrian, bicycle or oLher improvements and connections. With respect to the proposed discount store, the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") does create separate deiuutions for free-standing discount stores and shopping malls. Free-standing discount stores aze described by IT'E as "free-standing stores with off-street parking. They usualiy offer a variery of customer services, centralized caslilering and a wide range of products. They rypically maintain long store hours 7 days a week. The stores included in this land use aze often the only ones on the site, but they can also be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated gazden center and/or service station. Free-standing discount stores aze also sometimes found as sepazate parcels within a retai] complex with their own dedicated i pazking." A discount store in the Robinsons May building would not technically be a"free- ~ standing" discount retailer as it would presumably be integrated into the remaining portion of tne mall. Nevertheless, ITE does not distinguish between free-standing discount retai] stores and those discount retail stores that aie faund within shopping centers, According to ITE, a discount I retai] store would be classified as a freestanding discount store or superstore. A superstore is differentiated from an ordinary discount store by the inclusion of a fu11-service grocery/mazket component. Both a discount store and a discouni superstore 6enerate significantly more traffic than an anchor in a shopping center on a per squaze foot basis. Even though the proposed store would be a part of the mall, it would have free-standing cnaracteristics, and it is a distinguishable use from other uses present at the mall. It would be inappropriate to classify a discount retail store as part of a shopping ce~ter for uaffic generation purposes, be~ause the characteristics of such a store faA much more within the description of a discount store/superstore than the definition of a shopping center, as defined by ITE. A discount retail store would generate significuitiy more traffic than Robinsons May whether or not a full-service grocery store is included within it. The Westfield EIR used ITE land use code 820 for shopping centers when analyzing the traffic impacts for the existing portion of the mall. The IT'E code for a discount retail store would fall into land use code 815 (free-standing discount store) or land use code 813 (free-standing discount superstore). The average daily trip generation per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable azea for a shopping center is 42.94, 56.02 for a free-standing discount store, and 49.21 for a free-standing discount superstore. Average weekday pm peak hour trips for a shopping centez, free-standing discount store and free-standing discount superstore on a 1,000 square foot gross leasable area basis aze 3 J5, 5.06 and 3.87, respectively. Saturday average daily trips and peak hour ffips aiso show that a free- standing discount store has significantly more trips gene:ated than a shopping center on a per square foot basis. Greater traffic impacts associated with a discount retailer would cause greater pazking, air qw2lity and noise impacts. The greater traffic impacts, and resulting greater impacts associated with the change to a discount retail store, have not been analyzed. The unpacts would likely be significant considering the ambient levels of traffic surrounding the mall, and even small increases in traffic can make a significant environmental impact. (1) Utilities/5ervice 5vstems - Solid VJaste Disnosal. The EIR does not analyze the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds of significance for solid waste. The EIR does not analyze whether there is sufficient capacity in the available landfills. There is no conclusion whether the project would have a significant impact. Further, the EIR impact relates sole]y to 15 ~ waste diversion, but even if there is waste diversion, there may still be a significant impact due to lack of landfill capacity, These issues should be appropriately analyzed in the subsequent environmental review document. Landfills that would service this project have diminished capacity, necessitating a supplemental EIR due to the significant impact created. IIL MITIGATION MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 7, Comnletion of Reauired Public Improvements. Westfield has developed and operated its first expansion without completing the traffic improvements that were required as a condition of that development. These include three key inteTSections: (1} the Eastbound I-210 ramp intersection with Baldwin, (2) the intersection of Foothill and Baldwin, and (3) the intersection at Huntington and Rosemead. Westfield's new operations have increased traffic in the azea, which negatively affects the neighboring properties, surrounding residential neighborhoods and businesses. Conversion to discount store operations and further mall expansion will only add more tcaffic thereby exacerbating conditions created by these uncompleted improvements. The analysis provided for VJestfield's past expansion approval has not been comprehensive and is inadequate for the City to assess future development on Westfield's property, including any change of use for the Robinsons May building. The type of comprehensive analysis called for above is consistent with the detailed analysis that the City has required for the Santa Anita 5pecific Plan project. No less should be required of WesTfield. Any further development plans should be subject to a fu11 CEQA review through a new EIR before the City schedules any public heazings on the General Plan amendment, Zone Change, and Design review entitlements that will be required for Westfield's mall development pians. The mal] expansion analyzed in 2000 has significantly changed in design, scope, and use and the surrounding circumstances and conditions have also changed. In addition, new information has come to light which shows that impacts on municipal services such as Fire protection are much more severe than previously assumed. Cumulative development has also contributed to creanng the potential for significant new or more severe environmental impacts to be created that should be adequately disclosed, analyzed and mitigated for any new development. Any further mall development and any discount store use or other change to the Robinsons May building will require preparation of a new EIR. Please call me if you have any questions. S r C~~~ Rick oses cc: 7ason Kruckeberg, Community Development Administrator Frank DeMarco, T,he Santa Anita Companies, Inc. Bill Kelly, City Manager 16 email: azcadiac@pacbell.net ~ loiui~iinn~ioai~iom~oiiii~ioiii~ ARCADIA C9AMBEROFCOMMERCE www. azcadiachamber.com 388 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007 Tel: (626) 447-2159 ~ Fax: .(626) 445-0273 Apri13,2007 Arcadia City Council Mayor Roger Chandler Mayor Pro Tem Mickey Segal Peter Amundson Bob Harbicht John Wuo Deaz City Council Members, At the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors Meeting on Mazch 22, a motion was made "to support the full development of Westfield's existing facility to better serve the citizens and businesses of Arcadia." Additionally, "This is an endorsement of the conclusion that reasonable competition and expanded offerings are a benefit to a11," as commented by Russ C'iarside. During the discussion, there was mention of ..."the asstunption that Cal Trans and LA County Street improvements will have been met by Westfield, and that traffic mitigation requirements will be completed prior to the new developmenYs commencing construction." The mofion was approved mianimously by the Board. - Also discussed favarably were the new jobs that will result, and improve@, enlarged pazking planned for the expansion known as The Pmmenade. Much discussion regarding the benefits to the city from the new expansion took place, and it was agreed that this project will not only bring more tax revenue to the city, but it will fill a gap in the local retail industry. The 35 to 50 yeaz old women who shop in Arcadia will be the focus of this expansion. Renderings the group has seen showed an outdoor facility with azeas to stroll & sit and relax while shopping, a concept that met with general approval. Because the chamber is a business organization, we encourage good business development such as this project. incerely, Beth Costanz ~ Executive D'uector Arcadia Chamber of Commerce "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA" March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Wes~eld Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita NAME ~ ` ~.b ~ rc~tn.~n ~. d~rl ~~ ~ orvir, r~4IE ~'~Ci~`G(~s ~V1G1 ~I b01 STORE ~ L ' ~,~, ~' ~ Dld /I/av v ~1-i,'-~'~-+~ ~e f~-~~S ~un ~-(ecQ ~ cd-Q ~-a.or~,.~. L Uzcntie ~ 1 "a~n.e ~ ~~~ ~ G~-f~-t~t~~S SQc~(~ . 2c~~ ~ Ct n~ SIGNATURE G~~ ~/-c~-. t~i P~,y~a CHA~DeA "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA' March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move fonvard. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer WestHeld Santa Anita NAME SIGNATURE STORE `~-i~ ~~ ~ J~,nir ..e ' a Ph cun ~m~ a K~ea~ ~vF,~ ni-~ ~,~,, n~~ n~ ~~+ ~'qV~rrz d %sn~~ Lz~ S~~ L-~ ~Ze-i-h 1~(°~Y~ ~r~ ~.~1~1 yYl G~ ~Gt ~ C0/1 ~ ~ ~ ' " ~"~"~`~-~. ~~,,,,--.. ~s < ~ ~~5~ 5~r~e ~ ~r~~'-~-~ ~ ~E«, s~~.s . ~,.i l~orlr.t (~~2~n2 ~_ J ~~.. s 1- ~v1~ti,4 K~L~Y `S coFFEE ~ FwC~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA' March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and wili bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Wes~eld's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita STORE ~ci r V~-~ ~ ~ e h~ ~ E.~L' S ~ b ~s U~L f "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA" March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Wes~eld Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Wes~eld has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield San[a Anita NAME Mo*1-e0~ MCOi~1Pr ~'V1~yy~ ~arcw+ S 'su 3~nu~ ~ ~ i JlncJ ~ ~A- IjQY~ ' `- ~•.~ i~r! STORE ~~ VCt~ ~'l f~ ~ ~rt~anl f~ef'cro,.~bna, E ~i'~-c ~~- ~i/a~1~ ~,a+~e.~-- ~~f~ J l~- r~ o nii, ~ ~o-o ~ iacc.~ ~-Di~ ,c~~ lI "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA" March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping centec Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Refailer a~d Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita NAME JUI\O CA~~oiZG~N~ ~~ ~~ ~ ' ~~r - ~~ oC,. (~1,. ~- ~ ~nn ~ n~ _ ~~l~v~.Y / ~~~ ~t ~-- ~1 ~ ~~ ~~ -~~0~1 ~~, STORE ~.N~1~p~,/N J ,r~i. /~3.c/d~~~ ~4,~s~~L;~'iQS 6~itzr.JS/~ T~/G :.~..cE ~c~P~2 ~~...~~c..~ l2+~T~ ~A~^-~~F}, C~1.j'(E'~3 ~Jaw, Le~n a ~ ~?~'. ~' :GWnu ~-T I ~. xp _ ~o ~~.r ~ ~ "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA' March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our abillty to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita STORE ~~ I~~ Q~Id~CG P ' i ~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~! ,~~5 c~7 J~u~F LCf~'rt j~j/L7clGS~.t.az . ~ ~U C S UI'~ v~J ~~I t~ s ~'i~-~ ~F/~5t~i o~~GS-- ~~~,~ ...; rJ,P j-' c ~ 7`~ / _~- ~ ~, ; "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA" ,/ March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfeld has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to iYs tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Wes~eld Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move fonvard. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita NAME ~~ ~~~ v~v~m~E,~~r~.tc c: k-1~~ 4~~, STORE !J ~~ ~~ > Do ~ f~~le ~/o~.r~5~~~ 7~/YIP Co ~ ~~~ ~u ~SIa P ~ a,,,~~. ~; ,~. ~ ~-~ "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA' March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Wes~eld's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to it's tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respectfully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Retailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita NAME I ~t~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ol i na. che~ (~-r~Cz.~o .n~~ Ic~~C -r~,-,~.f ~ ~' ~n..co7 ~~~ ~obcr~f i(eneq~+5 ~e Lr~st~l Dm~rurwu~ STORE sS ~S Sa ~/3 '~f.rMY'~O ,'j~.~/~ T~ uin -~ ~ ~Jm% ~e r x' Gy~.•v_S (.c~or~,t~k~i~ 57rez t- c~o,~ ~k,~° ~'r~d~1 Sec~e ~ . Q~tl~IF Wt~vvr~ih cin~x- r~~ I~,-~,. ` ~C/'~l'9/~Q/~/Gj ~in~~l ~in~ "WE SUPPORT THE PROMENADE AT WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA" March 29, 2007 Dear City Council Members: As retailers at Westfield Santa Anita and taxpayers in the City of Arcadia, we are thankful for Westfield's constant reinvestment in the shopping center. Keeping the center vibrant, exciting and relevant is critical to our ability to run successful businesses within the city. It also ensures that citizens of Arcadia will be able to find world-class shopping experiences within their own community, without having to travel to other communities. Keeping business in the City of Arcadia is vital to city revenue and contributes to needed city services. Westfield has made a strong commitment to the City of Arcadia and to it's tenants. It constantly reinvests responsibly, is a giving corporate citizen and has proved that it is willing to work with the city to make this project beneficial to the local community and existing and future retailers. We ask that that this distinguished Council approve "The Promenade." It is an important addition to Westfield Santa Anita and will bring a new kind of outdoor shopping experience and new upscale retailers to the center. We respecffully ask that the City Council allow Westfield's reinvestment and improvements for the center to move forward. Sincerely, Re[ailer and Taxpayer Westfield Santa Anita NAME ~~1=- P. ~ SIGNATURE STORE ~~ ~ • 1. t G( ~-n ' ~n~~ ...» ~, ~~ ~'.•°~._~"` STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Pubtic Works Services Directbr I Prepared by: LubomirTomaier, Principal Civil Engi eer Jan Balanay, Engineering Assistant SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT SUMMARY The current debris retention basin in the vehicle and equipment wash rack at the Public Works Service Center is inadequate to meet current debris and fluid disposal demands. A larger debris catch basin is required to capture a larger quantity of debris which will allow the City to reduce labor demand for basin maintenance and debris removal and help ensure that the City continues to stay in compliance with State and Federal regulatory mandates. Staff recommends that the City Council award a contract to Cedar Development Corporation for the replacement of the existing debris retention basin at the Public Works Service Center in the amount of $49,500. The vehicle and equipment wash rack, where vehicles and construction equipment is cleaned, is located at the Public Works Services Center (Service Center). In its current state, the debris retention basin in the wash rack is inadequate for the current vehicle and equipment cleaning demands of the Service Center. When the Service Center was originally constructed, the vehicle and equipment wash rack was intended to wash the exterior of City vehicles only, while cleaning construction equipment and street sweepers were performed in debris storage bins or at the construction sites. Since that time, new storm water regulations require that ali wash water be captured and properly disposed of through the sanitary sewer system. The retention basin must be cleaned Recommendation: Approve Mayor and Ciry Council April 3, 2007 daily due to more stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements mandated by the State Water Board (SWB). Debris washed from our construction equipment and street sweepers clog the small debris basin in the wash rack, which results in daily cleaning. Maintenance staff spends approximately two (2) hours per day cleaning the debris basin. Enlarging the debris basin will allow the use of excavating equipment to clean the basin instead of maintenance workers manually shoveling debris from the basin. The reconstruction of a larger debris retention basin will reduce the cleaning demand to once every three months instead of daily and ensure that there is no illegal discharge of water and or debris from the Service Center. Work for this project is included in the 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program under the New Wash Rack at the Service Center - Construction. Notices inviting bids were published in the adjudicated paper and bid packages were distributed to area contractors. The following five (5) bids were received on March 15, 2007: Bidder Location Bid Amount Cedar Developmenf Corp. Mira Loma $49,500.00 E.C. Construction Co. . South EI Monte $83,361.89 Perry Thomas Const. Inc. Monrovia $90,043.00 Fleming Environmental Buena Park $92,643.00 4-Con Engineering Riverside $103,900.00 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the Contractor's background and recent projects for competency. It is staff's opinion that Cedar Development'Corporation can satisfactorily perform the work required and recommends that the City Council award a contract to Cedar Development Corporation for the replacement of the existing debris retention basin at the Public Works Service Center in the amount of $49,500. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT $50,000 is budgeted in the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program for the New Wash Rack at Service Center Construction Project. ' .~ Mayor and City Council April 3, 2007 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Award a contract to Cedar Development Corporation in the amount of $49,500.00 for the replacement of the debris retention basin at the Service Center Construction Project. 2. Waive any informalities in the bid or bidding process. 3. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved: _ ~°'r"' William R. Kelly, City Manager PM:LT:JB °~, G(. ..~..... s:e~ 4 uw a ~m~o;ty ocN° `` STAFF REPORT Police Department DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police ~-; By: Nancy Chik, Management Analy,s~_.. ~ SUBJECT: Santa Anita Derbv Dav 5K Run and Walk Recommendation: Waive expenses related to traffic control services for the Thirteenth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K to be held on Saturday, April 7, 2007. SUMMARY The Los Angeles Turf Club (Santa Anita) is sponsoring their Thirteenth Annual 5K Run & Walk wherein tra~c control services are required to facilitate the event. Typically, when City services or personnel are required for coordination of special events, the cost of these services is bome by the event organizer. In this instance, like years past, Santa Anita is requesting that the City waive the cost of traffic control services because it is a charitable event. DISCUSSION The 5K race is one of several special events that will be held in conjunction with the Santa Anita Derby and will be coordinated by Kinane Events, Inc. This year the Derby Day 5K Run 8~ Walk is co-sponsored by the Methodist Hospital of Southem Califomia and Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita. Participation of contestants has increased each year, and it is anticipated that about 5,000 runners/walkers will join in this year's event. Any profits from the race will be donated to Iocal beneficiaries including the Arcadia High School Athletic Boosters Club and the Arcadia Historical Museum. If the race operates at a loss, Santa Anita will give all organizations a check for a fixed amount. The Arcadia Police Explorer Post will also receive $500 from this event. The race will begin inside the racetrack beiween gate #3 and gate #1, and the runners/walkers will proceed through the track parking lot, exit at gate #8, and cross Baldwin Avenue. The participants will continue north on Baldwin Avenue in the southbound #2 lane, which will be barricaded, and enter the Arboretum parking lot just south of gate #7. They will proceed through the course in the Arboretum and exit by the fountain, cross back over Baldwin Avenue, Finally, the racers will proceed through the training track to the finish line. and enter the racetrack through gate #7. turf tunnel and infield, and wind up on the The Police Department will provide intertnittent traffic control to facilitate the running of the race and to ensure the safety of the participants. The savings to Santa Anita is estimated at approximately $1,500.00 for traffic control. It is anticipated that tra~c flow on Baldwin Avenue beiween Colorado and Huntington will be diverted between 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. Police personnel will use traffic flow management pattems that have been previously used and shown to have the most minimal effect on businesses or local residents. As part of hosting an event of this type, Santa Anita is also required to provide a certificate of insurance designating the City of Arcadia as an additional insured. They have provided the required insurance certificate and it has been approved by the City Attomey. FISCAL IMPACT The event will cost about $1,500 in overtime for Police personnel and will be absorbed in the Police overtime budget. RECOMMENDATION Approve Santa Anita's request to waive the cost of traffic control services for the Thirteenth Annual Santa Anita Derby Day 5K Run 8~ Walk to be held on April 7, 2007. Approved: _ I~~b~ William R. Kelly, City Manager ~. ` C~ , ~ 9 ~a:.:; Com°~~ni[y~ot~°~~ STAFF REPORT Development Services Department April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director~ SUBJECT: Amendment to the Professional Services Aqreement witfi Kevser Marston Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The City has contracted with Keyser Marston Associates to provide economic development advisory services for several years. These services include analysis of development projects such as the Westfield Mall expansion and the proposed Shops at Santa Anita. The City has previously entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to provide economic development advisory services at an amount not-to-exceed $14,000, which is under the $15,OQQ threshold for the staff to enter into such an agreement. However, with all the work in the past year related to development of the Mall and the Racetrack property, the amount of work will exceed $15,000, so City Council approval of an amendment is needed. Staff is proposing that the amendment change the PSA from $14,000 to $25,000. DISCUSSION The City has contracted with Keyser Marston Associates for several years to provide economic development advisory services. Typically this can include analysis of project economics and development pro forma. The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency also contracts with this firm for housing advisory services and economic analysis on certain redevelopment projects. Under the City's purchasing policies staff is authorized to enter into a professional services agreement with firms for amounts under $15,000. For this fiscal year staff executed such an agreement with Keyser Marston for $14,000, however, due to all the work involved with the proposed Westfield Mall expansion and the proposed Shops at Santa Anita, the amount expended will exceed $15,000 so staff is seeking City Council Mayor and City Council April 3, 2007 Page 2 approva( to amend the PSA. Staff anticipates that a total not-to-exceed amount of $25,000 will be needed by the end of the fiscal year. BUDGET No additional appropriation is needed for this proposed increase in the PSA as the work on the Shops at Santa Anita is reimbursed by the developer, so there is no cost impact on the City for this increased amount. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Keyser Marston Associates for economic development advisory services for an additional $11,000 for a total PSA of $25,000. Approved: I~~:.-~s William R. Kelly, City Manager ..~ ~ . -~, ~ ...a ~~n~nii> n(No F~~ STAFF REPORT Office of the City Manager DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager Linda Garcia, Communications, Marketing & Special Projects Manage~ By: Connie Schacatano, Executive Assistant a, SUBJECT: Recommendation: Adopt In reviewing records, staff was unable to locate a resolution that set forth the specific dates, time and location for regular meetings of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission. Due to the lack such a resolution, all regular meetings must currently be considered "Special Meetings". The Adoption of Resolution No. 6560 will set the dates and times for future meetings of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission and therefore facilitate the agenda process. Piease note that although Resolution No. 6560 sets forth when the Arcadia Beautiful Commission meets for regular meetings, special meetings will be held as needed (e.g. to conduct judging for the Arcadia Beautiful and Holiday Decoration awards). FISCAL IMPACT None RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6560, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California adopting date, time and location for regular meetings of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission. Page 1 of 2 1C~l~lQ.,~ .~ ,'. Mayor and City Council-Establish dates, time and location for Arcadia Beautiful Commission Meetings April 3, 2007 Page 2 APPROVED: -~~ William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 6560 Page 2 of 2 ~ ;.:>, RESOLUTION NO. 6560 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE ARCADIA BEAUTIFUL COMMISSION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Arcadia Beautiful Commission of the City of Arcadia shall hold its regular meetings on the second Thursday of February, June and October at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers Conference Room. SECTION 2. All prior City resolutions relative to the date and time of the Arcadia Beautiful Commission meetings are hereby repealed in their entirety. SECTION 3. In the event of any permanent change to the time, date, or meeting place, said changes shall be made by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption and shall supersede any prior resolutions. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 1 ~ Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2007 Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~.-~. ~. 2-~e, Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 2 , ~ C~ _, oF: A~.~.. ~ ~,. °~4~~~Y~tH~P` STAFF REPORT Development 5ervices Department Date: April 3, 2007 To: Mayor and City Council From: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director~ Martha Eros, Transportation Services Officer~ Subject: Resolution No. 6563 authorizinq the Citv Manaqer to execute a Memorandum of Understandinq among the Southern California Association of Governments, the Los Anaeles Countv Metropolitan Transportation AuthoritV and the Los Anqeles Countv Transit Operators. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Attached for the City Council's consideration is Resolution No. 6563 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA/Metro), and the Los Angeles County Transit Operators for the continued planning and programming of federal transit funds in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The MOU will permit SCAG and MTA/Metro to continue cooperative planning and programming protocol with local transit operators to coordinate and implement regional transportation projects. BACKGROUND Per Public Utility Code §130050, MTAIMetro is responsible for planning and approving all long and short range transportation projects in Los Angeles County that use federal and state highway transit funds. Additionally, MTA/Metro coordinates and recommends projects to SCAG for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), develops and adopts the Los Angeles County Long Range Transportation Plan, develops corridor and sub-regional transit studies, and allocates transit funds to all county transit operators. The Arcadia City Council approved Resolution 6553 on February 6, 2007, authorizing the City of Arcadia to enter into a MOU directly with SCAG to establish the planning and programming responsibilities between the City, Arcadia Transit and SCAG. Resolution No. 6563 will extend and define responsibilities to include MTA/Metro. ;• DISCUSSION For triennial audit purposes, SCAG has been directed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to enter into a MOU agreement with the each publicly owned transit operator in Los Angeles County that specifies the collaborative planning and programming process that is currently in place for the region. SCAG and MTA/Metro staff has developed the attached MOU that outlines existing transit coordination responsibilities for each respective agency in order to meet federal performance requirements. The Bus Operators Subcommittee (BOS) has reviewed and approved the proposed MOU language. As an included transit operator of the 17-member regional BOS, the City of Arcadia has continuously complied with regional and federal programming requirements to remain an eligible recipient of funds for the Arcadia Transit dial-a-ride system. Staff has programmed FTA Section 5307 and CMAQ funds for capital projects, including the five- year bus replacement schedule and the purchase of technical equipment, in the RTIP per SCAG requirements, As a designated recipient of federal capital funds, the City identifies capital transit projects to MTA/Metro and SCAG for inclusion in the RTIP, directly submits grant applications to the FTA to obligate funds, and participates in triennial performance reviews conducted by the FTA. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Not applicable with the execution of MOU document. FISCAL IMPACT The City of Arcadia receives federal funds to purchase capital equipment, including replacement buses for the Arcadia Transit dial-a-ride system, and programs funds through MTA/Metro and SCAG. RECOMMENDATION That the Arcadia City Council approve Resolution No. 6563 authorizing the City Manager to execute a'Memorandum of Understanding among the Southern California Association of Governments, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the Los Angeles County Transit Operators. Approved by: u~~l William R. Kelly, City Manager Attachment: 1. Resolution No. 6563: SCAG, LACMTA, Transit Operators Memorandum of Understanding 2 s :,- RESOLUTION NO. 6563 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS. WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Title 1, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California Govemment Code (Section 6500 et seq.) and is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) organized under 23 U.S. C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303; and WHEREAS, SCAG is required pursuant to federal and state law to prepare, adopt and submit a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a multi-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303 et seq., 23 U.S.C. 134 et seq., Cal Gov. Code Section 65080 et seq., Cal. Pub. Uril. Code 130300 et seq., and corresponding Federal and State regulations and guidance; and WHEREAS, SCAG is required pursuant to state and federal law to coordinate its planning activities with stakeholders pursuant to 23 Code of Federal Regulation 450.310(b) to enter into agreements with operators of publicly owned transit services to specify cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning (including corridor and sub-area studies) and programming; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA/Metro) is a County Transportation Commission created pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130050 and is charged pursuant thereto for approval of all projects in Los Angeles County utilizing federal and state highway and transit funds and is responsible for transportation programming and long and short range planning in Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, MTA/Metro is the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Los Angeles County, the state counterpart to the federal MPO designation; and WHEREAS, Metro is the regional transit operator for Los Angeles County, created pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 1300050; and the undersigned transit operatars and the undersigned paratransit operator (collectively, "Transit Operators") provide transit service within Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia - Arcadia Transit is a Transit Operators and a member of the Bus Operators Subcommittee (BOS); and WHEREAS, SCAG, MTA/Metro, and Transit Operators desire to enter into a certain Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to specify cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning and programming as required by 23 CFR 450310(b) and any successors thereto. z 1 • NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SBCTION 1. The City Council hereby approves that certain Memorandum of Understanding among the Southern Califomia Association of Govemments, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Los Angeles County Transit Operatars, a copy of which is on file with the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager or his/her designee, on behalf of the City of Arcadia, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of April, 2007. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: d~~a~ ~ o~~ City Attorney 3 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 6563 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A - MEMORANDUM OF ITNDERSTANDING AMONG THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS, THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS. WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a joint powers agency formed pursuant to Title l, Division 7, Chapter 5 of the California Govemment Code (Section 6500 et seq.) and is the Meiropolitan Plaiming Organization (MPO) organized under 23 U.S. C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303; and WHEREAS, SCAG is required pursuant to federal and state law to prepare, adopt and submit a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and a multi-year Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5303 et seq., 23 U.S.C. 134 et seq., Cal Gov. Code Section 65080 et seq., Cal. Pub. Util. Code 130300 et seq., and corresponding Federal and State regulations and guidance; and WHEREAS, SCAG is required pursuant to state and federal law to coordinate its planning activities with stakeholders pursuant to 23 Code of Federal Regulation 450310(b) to enter into agreements with operators of publicly owned transit services to specify cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning (including corridor and sub-area studies) and programming; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportarion Authority (MTA/Metro) is a County Transportarion Commission created pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 130050 and is charged pursuant thereto for approval of all projects in Los Angeles County utilizing federal and state highway and transit funds and is responsible far transportarion progratnining and long and short range planning in Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, MTA/Metro is the Regional Transportarion Planning Agency (RTPA) for Los Angeles County, the state counterpart to the federal MPO designation; and WHEREAS, Metro is the regional transit operator for Los Angeles Counry, created pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 1300050; and the undersigned transit operators and the undersigned paratransit operator (collectively, "Transit Operatars") provide transit service within Los Angeles County; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia - Arcadia Transit is a Transit Operators and a member of the Bus Operators Subcommittee (BOS); and WHEREAS, SCAG, MTA/Metro, and Transit Operators desire to enter into a certain Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to specify cooperative procedures for carrying out transportation planning and programining as required by 23 CFR 450310(b) and any successors thereto. z NOW, TI~REFORE, THE CITY COLJNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE 11ND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves that certain Memorandum of Understanding among the Southern California Association of Governments, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and Los Angeles County Transit Operatars, a copy of which is on file with the Office of the City Clerk, and authorizes and directs the City Manager or his/her designee, on behalf of the City of Arcadia, to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 3raday of April, 2007. ~Sl RO~ER CHANDLER Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: !S/ ~~~ES H. ~I~RR~~V~ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: , ~~~ 0 ~ ,1~~~~~a~,~ City Attorney 3 STATE OF CALIFORrTIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CIT'Y OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6563 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 3rd day of April, 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Member Amundson, Harbicht, Segal, Wuo and Chandler NOES: None ABSENT: None /~ JA S H~ ~ARR S City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 4 ~_~ ~~$~~.r'9-~°~ STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Gouncil FROM: SUBJECT: SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council authorize staff to continue utilizing legal services for personnel related matters with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo BACKGROUND In January 2003, the City Manager, Assistant City Manager and Administrative Services Director interviewed severa~ attorneys and firms primarily for the purpose of selecting a firm to represent the City during labor negotiations. After completing interviews and as result of staff's recommendation, the City Council approved an agreement with Mr. William W. Floyd of Best Best & Krieger for labor relations and related legal services. Mr. Stephen Deitsch of Best Best & Krieger is also the City's general counsel. In addition, staff also felt it was critical to have access to more than one attorney and firm when addressing issues in the area of personnel. Many times if an independent investigation into a personnel matter is necessary, it is imperative that the legai counsel who may ultimately defend the City if litigation occurs not be the one conducting the investigation. If this were to occur, it could be argued that the attomey had a conflict of interesf and as a result either the investigation or the defense could be compromised. For the same reasons, it is extremely important to have an independent attomey represent the City in personnel hearings with the Human Resources Commission. As a result, it was suggested someone other that Mr. Floyd provide these personnel related services. Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director '~ t As a result, the City reached agreement for independent personnel legal services with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo. DISCUSSION Consistency in legai advice and strategies is essentiai. The firm of Atkinson, Andelson, ~oya, Ruud & Romo has been working with the City on a number of issues and since there are on-going personnel issues that staff is addressing with these legal advisors, it is recommended the City continue with the current letter agreement during the 2006-07 FY. This firm has provided excelfent services over the last few months. StafF is projecting that personnel legai services costs will not exceed appropriation authority but wiA exceed previous City Council's authorization for these independent legal services under currerrt letter agreements. As a resuit, staff is recommending the City Council authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under letter agreements that are in place and authorize a new contract fiscal amount with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo of not to exceed $30,000. FISCAL IMPACT Adequate funds are available in the General Fund for the 2006/07 fiscal year, It is recommended the City Council: Authorize staff to continue utilizing legal services for personnel related services with Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo under a current letter agreement Approved: ""~--`="'~ William R. Kelly, City Manager 2 ~W~~ ~Nl ~ ~ S TAFF REP ORT Administrative Services Departxnent DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Director~ SUBJECT: Recommended ~ SUMMARY From time to time, various departments in the City require temporary clerical staffing services. Departments due to staffing changes and re-organizations have had a need for temporary clerical services. DISCUSSION The City has utilized several temporary staffn0 agencies for clerical services. During the last few months several Departments required extended services due to vacancies and re-organizations. In addition, the special election processes has required additional temporary sta~ng. As a result, temporary clerical services for 2006-07 fiscal year will exceed the contract amount of $25,000 by $ 7000, for a total annual cost of $32,000. In accordance with the City's Purchasing Code, City Council action is required for a change to a purchase order for professional services that exceeds 10% of the original contract amount. Due to the timing of recxuitments and additionai special election staffing, the need for th~ additional services up until June 30, 2007 was not originally anticipated. Staff is now requesting an amendmerrt. FISCAL IMPACT S~cient funds are remaining in the 2006-07 FY Budget for the proposed amendment as the Departments have experienced salary savings due to vacancies. Mayor and City Council April 3, 2007 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION Approve a change order to a purchase order for temporary clerical services with Express Personnel Services in an amount of $7,000. Approved: "~-"-''=a William R. Kelly, City Manager ~ ~ .. _~~, °J C~ r AaemPl~19% °~°~~ty ~f~°~`~ S TAFF REP ORT Police Department DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robert P. Sanderson, Chief of Police~ By: Nancy Chik, Management Analyst `~= ' SUB.IECT: Waive the Formal Bid Process and Authorize the Citv Manaqer to Enter SUMMARY The Police Department is seeking to contract with Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. to provide overnight parking, daytime street sweeping, and general parking enforcement in the City. Inter-Con is the only qualified firm that has the experience to provide such as a service. The nearby cities that currently contract with Inter-Con for pa~king enforcement services are Alhambra, Pasadena, South Pasadena, San Gabriel, and La Verne. The Police Department recommends approval of this "piloY' program with Inter-Con for a one-year period in an amount not to exceed $208,060.16. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Cities utilize parking enforcement to enhance public safety and traffic flow, and to distribute limited parking resources to a variety of users. The Arcadia Municipal Code also prohibits parking on public streets between the hours of 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. These restrictions were enacted to increase safety and security, as well as enhance the City's aesthetic. The Arcadia Police Department enforces both City and State parking regulations. While most parking violations are issued on streets and roadways, parking citations may be issued in City parking lots, Los Angeles County facilities such as the County Park or Recommendation: Approve Arboretum, other public facilities such as schools and on private property, providing proper signs are in place. From the early 1980's to 1996, two Parking Control ~cers conducted the majority of parking enforcement. During that period, about 13,860 parking citations were issued annually. However, in 1996-1997, due to attrition and budgetary constraints, the Pa~icing Control Officers' positions'were eliminated, and patrol officers were responsitile for all parking enforcement. From 1997 to 2004, the average number of parking citations issued annually was 7,262. In 2005, a Community Service Officer (CSO) was delegated with the task of enforcing parking violations during the day. This dedicated position increased the City's parking enforcement capability and as part of that enforcement activity, an additional 2,000 citations were issued. However, in 2006, the CSO was reassigned back to Jail Services because of the lack of jail service coverage. Additionally; due to the recent lack of sworn personnel, enforcing parking issues have been sporadic and therefore parking citations have, dectined significantly. Since that time, parking citations have been reduced by approximately 2,500. To help alleviate this probiem, the Department looked into contracting with a firm that is currently being used by several cities. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. is one of the largest security companies in the world and employs over 25,000 personnel. They provide security for the State of Califomia, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. embassies, Kaiser Permanente, museums, and other companies. Inter-Con is also the only qualified company that offers parking enforcement services and with the years of experience that other companies do not have. In terms of parking enforcement experience, Inter-Con has contracted with the City of Pasadena for almost 12 years, Alhambra for over 10 years, South Pasadena for 4 years, San Gabriel for over a year, and La Verne was just added as a contract city last month. With Inter-Con personnel dedicated to enforcing parking issues, all the cities have seen a significant increase in parking enforcement. This has also afforded these cities the ability to address parking related complaints, provide for the removal of abantloned vehicles, improve community aesthetics, and maintain an overall effective program. This would not be the first occasion where the Department has sought a private contractor to perform functions that were previously handled by Police personnel. In 2000, All City Management was contracted to provide school crossing guard services• The crossing guard program had been administered by the Police Department for over 40 years, but with the low hourly salary and because most of the crossing guards were elderly, they experienced a higher occurrence of sickness and injury, which frequently required finding substitute guards. Maintaining a backup cadre of guards proved to be virtually impossib(e; consequently, it was not uncommon for the Department to staff the position with police-officers, community service officers, or cadets. Additionally, with higher workers compensation claims, administrative costs, equipment, recruitment, background checks, medical exams, and the use of officers to fill vacant positions, it was determined to be more cost effective to outsource the program. Inter-Con Security will be responsible for hiring, training, scheduling, disciplining, and firing of their personnel. The company will supply properly marked uniforms and vehicles. In the agreement, Inter-Con will initially provide two Senior Parking Enforcement Representatives (SPER), two Parking Enforcement Representatives (PER), and two vehicies. From Monday to Friday, a SPER and PER will work from 3:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and another SPER and PER will work from 10:00 a.m. to 6:~0 p.m. Should the need arise, the City can amend the agreement and add personnel to cover weekend parking enforcement. The SPER and PER will be responsible for enforcing the following parking violations: SECTION VIOLATIONS PENALTY Arcadia Municipal Code Violation 10.1 No Stopping or Standing in Pazkway $40.00 103 No Stopping or Parking $40.00 10.3(7) No Stopping or Parki~g (Street Sweeping) $40.00 10.12 No Parldng (Emergency Signs) $40.00 11 Green Curb (24 Minutes Only) $40.00 11.2 & 3 Overtime Parking $40.0(1 11.6 Park in Space Parking 540.00 11.9 Ovemight Pazking (3:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.) 540.00 11.91 Overnight Pazking (Vehicles Over 6,000 Pounds) $60.00 12.1 Park in Violapon of Curb Markings $40.00 12.2 Load or Unload in Excess of 20 Minutes $40.00 12.3 Park in Loading Zone $40.00 12.4 Park in Passenger Loading Zone $40.00 12.5 Park in Alley $40.00 13.15 Commercial Vehicle One-Hour Truck Route $60.00 13.16 Commercial Vehicle One-Hour OffTruck Route $90.0(1 3240 Parking on Private Property $40.0(1 9405.1k.b Pazk on Lawn/Unpaved Surface $40.00 Mazk aod Tag for 72-Hour Violations California Vehicle Cade 21113a Parking on Public Grounds 540.00 22500a Pazldng Within an Intersection $40.00 22500b On a Crosswalk $40.00 22500e In Front on Public or Private Drive $40.00 22500f On a Sidewalk $40.00 22500i Bus Zone $255.00 22500.1 Park in Fire Lane/Accessway $255.00 22502 Park over 18" from R/Curb (or Wrong Side) $40.00 SECTION VIOLATIONS PENALTY 22507.8 Handicapped Pazkiug (F'vst Offense) $330.00 22514 Fire Hydrant (Within 15') 540.00 5200(a) No FrontPlate 540.00 5204(a) Improper Display of Tabs $40.00 Also in the agreement, Inter-Con will pay the City $200 for each unfilled 8-hour shift. This was included because an unfilled shift equates to a lack of enforcement and revenue for the City. Additionally, Inter-Con will pay $5.00 for each voided citation due to unsatisfactory or unjustified citation. This provision is to prevent over-zealous employees from issuing unwarranted citations and to cut down on administrative reviews of citations. The cost of the annual contract is $189,145.60, with an additional $18,914.56 set aside foc contingencies.' As indicated in the chart below, the hourly rate for a SPER is $22.19 per hour and $20.03 per hour for a PER. - : Dallq Service Houre. : ~ Weekly ~~: ~ - ~~ ~~PoSt Coverege Hours . ~~ ~ ~~HOUtly . PoslGOn -~JOb No. :' Waked '. . ~ ~ ~TOtal Rep. ~..~ Totel :: BIIIinB ~ W~Y Weekly Annual Classif-' :~ W,~> Per ;~ !~ ~. Annual :~.:Rete ~ ".Reg . ~.nhon '~.DUtlea SteB' Day ~~ -Man Tue~~~~ Wetl Thu Fd Hre Hrs. 1 . Houre -Reg ~'Cost ,COat ~<Coat SPER Parkinp Enforce 2 8 18 18 16 18 18 BO 80 4,180 512.18 57,775.20 $1,77520 592,3i0.40 men[ PER PaAcing ~ ~ Enfirce 2 B 76 18 18~ 18 16 80 80 4,180 SZ0.03 $1,802.40 51,802.40 $83,324.80 ment SPER Training 4 920 5~2.18 $7,100.80 (80 hrs. for backup aik tumover) PER Treining 4 320 {20.0] 56,409.60 (80 ~rs. (or backup and wrnover) TOTAL S2 32 S2 32 32 160 180 8,880 53,377.80 f3,3T7.60 S~e8,146.eo ` CONTINGENqES NB,974.58 ANNUAL NOT TO EXCEED 5~08,oeo.76 Even though the contract could cost the City $208,060.16, staff anticipates tripling to quadrupling the number of citations issued since Inter-Con will provide uninterrupted sta~ng of the parking enforcement detail. Their service will mean increased productivity and will be highly cost effective. As an example, the City of San Gabriel received about $22,000 per month in parking violation revenue when City employees = r handled the parking enforcement. After contracting with Inter-Con, San Gabriel now receives over $90,000 in revenue. Police staff also contacted five security firms. All of the security companies contacted did not offer any type of parking enforcement services for municipalities. The companies were: Shield Security, 11360 Valley Blvd., EI Monte City Security, 430 South Gafield, Suite 401, Alhambra Securitech Services, 3727 West 6~h Street, Suite 504, Los Angeles Eagle Security 5ervices, 8939 Sepulveda, Suite 430, Los Angeles California Panther Security, 2118 West Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708, Santa Monica Inter-Con has provided competent and adequate service to neighboring cities. Since this type of outsourcing is rare and the availability of capable, experienced vendors is extremely limited, the Department recommends considering Inter-Con as a sole source vendor and to waive the formal bid process and authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Inter-Con. In particular, Municipal Code Section 2846.3 permits the City Council to waive otherwise required competitive bidding when circumstances warrant. The City Attorney has opined that the City Council may waive the normal bidding procedures based on the foregoing facts in this instance. FISCAL IMPACT The City's financial obligation would be $208,060.16, and the Department anticipates receiving between $600,000 to $750,000 in parking violation revenue. Therefore, this contract could generate o~er a half million dollars in revenue for the City. RECOMMENDATION Waive the formal bid process and authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. for Parking Enforcement Services from April 15, 2007, to April 14, 2008, for an amount not to exceed $208,060.16. Approved: I~ \~ William R. Kelly, City Manager 3 b . ., ~~.-- --~,, I~~~rprnY YM~ f~ c°'m°~~~Y~tN°'`~ STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Direct r ~ Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director SUBJECT: SUMMARY Each year as part of the budget process, staff reviews utility rates to ensure utility rates match annual expenditures. This process is normally brought to the City Council for review and action in June of each year. In the past, the City has advertised the Notice of Public Hearing fourteen (14) days prior to the City Council Hearing for increases of water, sewer and refuse rates. However, a recent Supreme Court case has changed the process by which local jurisdictions are allowed to increase utility rates as they pertain to property ownership. For this reason, the City is now mandated to send a notice of public hearing to all property owners forty-five (45) days prior to the Public Hearing and consider all written protests against the rate increase. Staff is recommending that the City Council authorize the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for the increase of sewer and refuse rates, to conduct a public hearing at the June 19, 2007 City Council meeting and to prepare resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal year 2007-08. After an analysis of a ten-year projection of the water fund balance, staff is recommending to defer the adjustment in water rates until next year pending the completion of the update of the Water Master Plan. Once the Plan update is completed, staff will present the results to the City Council and request appropriate rate adjustments based on a final analysis of the findings. Page 1 of 5 Recommendation: Approve Mayor and City Council April 3, 20a7 BACKGROUND In a case handed down on July 24, 2006, the California Supreme Court held for the first time that water service rates are subject to Proposition 218. While the Court's ruling only specifically covered water rates, its reasoning aiso applies to sewer and refuse collection rates. As a result of the Califomia Supreme Court's decision, the City is required to change the process by which it increases water, sewer and refuse rates to be in compliance with Prop 218. Specifically, staff must • Send written Notification of a Pub{ic Hearing to all property owners at least forty- five (45) days prior to the Hearing. • On the no4ice, include the amount of the fee; the basis upon which the fee was calculated; the reason for the fee; and the date, time, and location of the Public Hearing of the proposed fee. . Conduct the Public Hearing not less than forty-five (45) days after mailing the notice. . Consider all written protests against the fee at the Public Hearing. If written protests against the proposed fee are presented by a majority of property owners, the City may not impose the rate increase. On the other hand, if written protests against the proposed fee are not presented by a majority of property owners, the City may impose the rate increase. Oral testimony at the Public Hearing will not be considered unless it is also submitted in writing by the residenUproperry owner according to Prop 218 regulations. DISCUSSION Refuse Rates In accordance with the Residentia! Refuse and Recycling Agreement Between the City of Arcadia and Waste Management Collection and Recycling, Waste Management has calculated an increase in rates based on a formula that is a balance between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Disposal'Fees at landfilis that accept refuse from the City of Arcadia (Table 1). Waste Management submitted their request to increase service rates that reflect the CPI change from the period of January 2006 to December 2006. A rate suFvey conducted in March, indicated the City of Arcadia's refuse rates are among the lowest in Los Angeles County, even with the proposed rate adjustment (Exhibit A & B). For single-family homes, the rate will,increase 4.45% or $0.62, changing the standard monthly se,rvice from $15.12 to $15.74. Residents with standard monthly service would be billed $47.22 every 3 months instead of $45.36, showing an increase of $1.86 every 3 months or $7.44 annually. Standard service for residents includes three (3) ninety-six Page 2 of 5 ~ Mayor and City Council ' April 3, 2007 (96) gallon bins for refuse, recyciables, and green waste. For multi-family homes, the rate will increase 5.85% or $5.07, changing the standard monthly service from $86.66 to $91.73. Multi-family rates have increased at a higher rate because average tipping fees at Waste-to-Energy facilities increased 11.4% between the period of January 2006 to December 2006 (Table 2). Waste-to-Energy facilities contribute to the City's diversion rate by burning over 50% of the multi-family trash generated in Arcadia. Table 1: Disposal Rate Increase Calculation for SINGLE-FAMiLY RESIDENTS Cost Com onent Year 1 Year 2 % Chan e Wei ht Product % CPI 201.8 210.4 4.3% 78% 3.35 Dis osal Facili Rate $23.82 $25.02 5.0% 22% 1.10 Total Change 4.45 Table 2: Disposal Rate Increase Calculation for MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS Cost Com onent Year 1 Year 2 % Chan e Wei ht Product % CPI 201.8 210.4 4.3% 78% 3.35 Dis osal Facilit Rate $38.40 $42.80 11.4% 22% 2.5 Total Change 5.85 The existing contract with Waste Management requires annual rate adjustments be calculated on the percent change from March to March of the previous year. In order to comply with the new notification period, Waste Management has agreed to amend the contract to the previous calendar year, from January through December. Along with the recommended rate adjustment at the June meeting, staff will aiso bring a contract amendment to the City Council changing the time period for calculating the CPI portion of the rate adjustment. Water Rates Last year staff recommended that the City Council defer a water rate adjustment until the Water Master Plan Update was completed. A final draft of The Water Master Plan Update is scheduled to be complete by June 2007. However, a preliminary financial analysis by staff suggests that a rate adjustment for fiscal year 2007/08 will not be needed and therefore is not recommended as part of this year's utility rate adjustments. Page 3 of 5 Mayor and City Council April 3, 200T Sewer Rates The proposed sewer rate increase for residential connections would be 4% (based on CPI from the period January 2006 to December 2006) or $0.14, changing rates from $3.51 to $3.65 per month or $1.68 annually. Commercial connection rates would increase from $10.51 to $10.92 per month, increasing by $0.82 per billing period or $4.92 annually. This proposed rate adjustment is predicated on annual operating budget, capital improvement projects outlined in the Sewer Master Plan Update and maintenance of a five (5) million dollar fund reserve, which may be used in case of an emergency or catastrophic event that would affect the sewer system's infrastructure. The 8ewer Master Plan, adopted by the City Council in May 2006, recommends annual rate adjustments based on changes in the Consumer Price Index. Annual adjustments in rates will provide sufficient funding for O&M and Capital Improvement Projects as well as adding to the Sewer Fund Reserve. CONCLUSION With this new mandate in effect, it is necessary that the City engage in the proper balloting process to ensure compliance with Prop 218 when increasing water, sewer, and refuse rates. Therefore, staff is recommending the City Council authorize the Public Works Services Department to follow Proposition 218 Balloting Procedures for the increase of sewer and refuse rates, conduct a public hearing at the June 19, 2007 City Council meeting and to prepare resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal year 2007-08. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Sewer and refuse rates are exempt from the requirements of the California Enyironmental Quality Act as specified in Title 14, Section 15273 of the California Administrative Code. FISCAL IMPAC7 If there are no rate increases to refuse collection rates, the City would be in breach of contract according to the Residential Refuse and Recycling Agreement Between the City of Arcadia and Waste Managemenf Collection and Recycling, which entities Waste Management' to annual Cost of Living Adjustments as calculated by the specified weights of indices in the formula outlined in the contract. Additionally, sewer rate increases are necessary to fund the Capital Improvement Projects Operating Budget, and to maintain a$5 million fund balance in case of a natural disaster or emergency. The lack of a rate increase would not allow the City to recover increasing operations and maintenance costs of running the City's sewer system. Analysis of the Water Financial Model shows that deferring a rate increase will not effect operations or maintenance of the City's water system at this time. Page 4 of 5 Mayor and City Council ' April 3, 2007 1. The City Council to maintain the current water rate structure for next year. 2. Authorize the Public Works Services Department to: a. Follow Proposition 218 balloting procedures for the increase of sewer and refuse rates and conduct a public hearing at the June 19, 2007 Council Meeting. b. Prepare resolutions to adopt the proposed rate increases for fiscal year 2007-08. c. Prepare a Refuse Contract Amendment changing the time period for calculating the CPI portion of the annual rate adjustment. APPROVED: _~" ' William R. Kelly, City Manager Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A City of Arcadia Refuse Collection Service Multi-family Base Rate Schedule Number of Bins STAB RATE and size . NUMBER OF PICK-UPS PER-WEEK 2 - 1.5 yard $178.82 $237.64 $356.44 $47524 $594.07 $712.88 3- 1.5 yard , $17822 $356.45 $534.67 $712.90 $891.71 $1,069.35 4- 1.5 yard 5237.65 $475.28 $712.91 $950.55 $1,188.20 51,425.82 5- 1.5 yard $297.04 $594.10 $891.14 $1,18821 $1,485.26 $1,782.31 1-3yard $77.86 $144.56 $233.56 $311.41 ~$389.28 - .,~$467.13 2-3yard . $139.01 5289.17 $417.02~ $556.01 $695.02 $634.02 3-3yard $200.21 $433.73 $600.57 $600.75 51,000.94 $1,201.14 4-3yard $261.36 $578.29 $784.05 $1,045.40 $1,306.75 $1,568.10 5-3yard $322.54 $722.86 $967.58 $1,290.09 $1,612.63 $1,935.12 1-6yard $145.90 $291.62 $437.71 $583.62 $729.52 $675.44 Number of Bins DISMOUNT RATE and Size NUMBER OF PICK-UPS PER WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - 1.5 yard $73.66 $147.37 $221.04 $294.72 $368.39 $442.08 2 - 1.5 yard $733.97 $267.93 $407.90 $535.97 $669.82 $803.79 3- 1.5 yard $200.94 $401.87 $602.01 $803.74 $1,004.68 $1,205.59 4-1.5yard $267.92 $535.85 $603.75 $1,071.66 $1,339.59 $1,607.51 5- 1.5 yard $334.91 $669.79 $1,004.70 $1.339.60 $1,674.50 $2,009.40 1 - 3 yard $87.81 $159.88 $25A.39 5339.71 $423.98 $508.76 2 - 3 yard $154.32 $319.71 $462.92 $61725 $771.54 $925.86 3-3yard $223.87 $479.27 $671.43 $895.24 $1,119.05 $1,342.87 4-3yard $293.30 $639.47 $879.94 $1,173.25 $7,466.57 $1,759.86 5-3yard $362.84 $799.35 $1,088.47 $1,451.31 $1,814.7A $2,176.96 1 - 6 yard $159.72 $319.47 $479.17 $638.88 $798.59 $958.32 Number of Bins S7AGE RATE and Size NUMBER OF PICK-UPS PER WEEK 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 - 1.5 yard $80.61 $16125 $241.86 $322.48 $403.09 $483.71 2 - 7.5 yard $146.61 $29320 $439.80 $586.39 $732.99 $879.59 3 - 1.5 yard $219.91 $439.81 $659.71 $879.61 $1.099.51 $1.319.41 4- 1.5 yard 5293.21 $586.41 $B79.62 $1,172.82 $1,466.05 $1,759.25 5-1.5yard $366.51 $733.00 $1,099.50 51,466.07 $1,832.51 $2,199.02 1 • 3 yard $91.73 $173.76 $275.25 $366.99 $456.75 $55D.49 2 - 3 yard $169.60 $347.55 $508.76 $678.35 $847.95 $1,017.54 ~ 3 - 3 yard $247.45 $521.30 $742.34 $989.79 $7,237.22 $1,484.66 4-3yard $325.31 $695.08 $975.93 51.301.25 $1,626.55 $1,951.88 5-3yard 5403.14 $868.84 $1,209.42 $1,612.55 $2,015.71 $2,418.85 1 - 6 yard $173.40 $346.84 $520.18 $693.58 $866.96 $1,040.36 `Please add the following fees to the rates listed above: Reeyeling Pee (Reso # 6269): 2•6 units = $1.00 per unit 7 or more units =$1.50 per unit AB 939 Fee =$0.30 per unit , Exhibit B City of Arcadia Refuse and Recycling Collection Service Single-family Base Rate Schedule Single Family Greenwaste Bin Service: Includes one (1) greenwaste bin, one (1) refuse and one (1) recycling container serviced once weekly Curbside Bin Service: Resident rolls bin and containers to their curb and the trash truck drives directly to the container then empties the bin and containers. C~ 3 1 .P h ~1 X t I ~ U ? ~ V 5. ;,j :K ~ ~ ~y 4. ~n 1 -1.5 yard $80.61 $72.61 7 - 3 yard $91.73 $82.56 Backyard Bin Service Waste Management enters residents backyard, rolls out their greenwaste bin and refuse/recycling containers to the curb, empties them, then return them to their original location on the same day. ~ ..c ~ JNC~R~'OAAS99~~BOg STAFF REPORT Development Services Deparhnent April 3, 2007 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City ManagedDevelopment Services Director~ Jason Kruckeberg, Community Development Administrator ~-~<' SUBJECT: APPROVE PROCEDURE AND PROTOCOL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED APPLICATIONS FOR "SHOPS AT SANTA ANITA" Recommended Action: Provide Direction The City Council will be holding a meeting on April 11 that will most likely be well attended concerning the Shops at Santa Anita Park project. The purpose of this report is to provide several options for conducting these public hearings given the expected attendance. The meetings will begin with a 30-minute presentation by Staff (approximately) on the project. Following that, we recommend allowing 30 minutes for the applicant to make their presentation. After that point, the public participation portion of the hearing would begin. Speaker cards will be provided to the audience and will be collected prior to and during the meeting. There are three methods of accepting public comment: 1) Normal Public Hearinq Format. This is the method most commonly used, where those in favor are asked to speak, then those in opposition, then a time for rebuttal from the applicant. The speaker cards however do not have a spot asking whether someone is for or against. 2) Randomly on a"First Come, First Served" basis. Also commonly used, this method would be to collect the cards in the order received and call names in this order. 3) Shuffle cards once all cards are received. Using this method, at the beginning of the meeting (7:00 PM) all cards received would be shuffled like a deck of playing cards into random order and called in such order. Any cards submitted after this point would be placed at the bottom of the pile. Regardless of which method is selected by Council, we recommend a time limit of no more than 3 minutes per speaker and 15 minutes for rebuttal from the applicant. Additionally, speakers should not be allowed to allocate part of their three minutes to another speaker and no speaker other than the applicant during "rebuttal" time should be allowed to speak a second time. Approved By: '~"~ William R. Kelly City Manager Page 2