HomeMy WebLinkAbout6561
RESOLUTION NO. 6561
A RESOLUTION 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 1 B 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
architectural 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
6561
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164,
subdivision (a), a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
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 EIR was appropriate; and
WHEREAS, to consider the potential environmental impacts of the
Original Project as changed or added to under ADR 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
6561
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
6561
is not required for the Project because Phase 1 b, as described in ADR
2005-026 and the EIR Addendum:
1. Does not constitute 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
6561
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not
to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects of the Project, but the City 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 environment, 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
6561
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this ls.;, day of May, 2007
ATTEST:
~ '" ~ ~------
ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia
APPROVED AS TQ FORM
~P.~
Stephen Deitsch
City Attorney
6
6561
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
continued adjourned regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May,
2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Council Member Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
-/~
ity Clerk of the City of Arcadia
7
6561
EXHIBIT "A"
8
6561
STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND FINDINGS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background Information
Westfield Santa Anita (previously known as the Santa Anita Fashion Park) opened to the
public in 1974. Westfield Corporation, Inc. purchased the mall in September 1998. The mall is
a regional 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, Westfield submitted various land use entitlement applications to allow for
an expansion of up to 600,000 additional square feet of Gross Leasable Area ("GLA") as well as
revisions to existing performance standards and design guidelines. The proposed expansion
included 465,000 square feet of retail shops/anchor stores, 110,000 square feet of multiplex
theaters, 20,000 square feet of freestanding restaurants and 5,000 square feet of shopping center
food court uses to be developed.
On September 5, 2000, the Arcadia City Council adopted Resolution 6198, which
amended the General Plan Land Use designation to increase the maximum floor area ratio from
.40 to .50, based on GLA. On October 3, 2000, the Arcadia City Council adopted the following
ordinances and resolutions: Ordinance 2135, 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
architectural 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 referred to 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 "Project"). Council Resolution 6197 certified the Final EIR, adopted findings
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, adopted a statement of overriding
considerations, and adopted a mitigation monitoring program.
Cit)' of Arcadia
February 2007
Wedfield Santa Anita
Page 1
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
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 square 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 1 a, however, some of the uses changed. The revised plans included a multi-screen theater,
restaurants and retail tenants including a bookstore, sporting goods store and entertainment uses.
This application was approved by the City Council on March 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 ofMacy'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 la. ADR 2002-061 was approved by
the Arcadia City Council on October 15, 2002.
Phase 1 a, 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 I a 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 wen as some surface parking lot spaces, were removed. The building
heights of the Phase I a improvements vary from 36 feet at the entry to a maximum of 66 feet,
including vertical elements.
C. Description of Phase 1 b
In 2005, Westfield applied for architectural design review for a second unit of Project
development, referred to herein as Phase Ib, pursuant to its entitlements and Resolution 6199.
ADR 2005-26 requests architectural design approval of approximately 100,800 square 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 the building limit line for
Cit)' of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 2
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Building Area C. The Phase I b 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 I b 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 I b retail
area and proceeding to the north towards Nordstrom. In addition, a semi-circular 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 1 b 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 1 b, 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 l68,907 square feet of retail 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
regarding the Project, and to determine and analyze whether impacts expected of Phase I 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 Ib). These impacts attributable 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 current information
regarding related projects in the surrounding area. The findings included below incorporate, by
reference, all previous findings and entitlements 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
City of An:.dia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 15164 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 tbe Certified EIR
As analyze~ 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 commercial in
nature) with the existing Santa Anita Racetrack located directly north and east of the site (Ibid.)
In addition, the Certified EIR concluded that the Project would not visually impact the horse
stables that are located directly north of the site, nor would it impact the large parking area east
of the site, since the parking area is not considered visually sensitive. (Ibid.)
In the Certified EIR, 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. 2\36 reconfigured the H8 overlay zone, limiting the
height of areas closest to West Huntington Drive to the height restrictions set forth in the C-2
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 addition, 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
feet below Baldwin A venue, which provides additional screening. (Ibid.)
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 Huntington Drive. (Addendum,
p.35)
Regarding potential cumulative impacts from the Project, the Certified EIR concluded
that there are no other proposed development proj ects which could combine to result in
cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area. As a result, cumulative aesthetic
impacts were not considered significant. (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.
City of Arcadia
February 2()()7
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 4
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
4.1.3.1. All site plans and architectural building elevations shall be .
submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval by the Planning
Commission and City Council in accordance 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.
(Draji 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 restaurant pads located along Baldwin Avenue
shall be limited to two (2) stories with a maximum 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 for 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 design review,
parking requirements, design guidelines for parking facilities, signage standards, landscaping
standards, 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 EIR 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 considered significant and no
mitigation is required. (Addendum, p. 35)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Building heights within Phase 1 a 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 Robinsons-May
building. Views of the Phase 1 a 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 1 a development. No substantia:! changes to pre-existing views, including views of the
Santa Anita Grandstands and San Gabriel Mountains, resulted from development of Phase 1 a.
Therefore, impacts related to views were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 36)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 5
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Phase I a was constructed in an architectural style using elements and colors that
complement the pre-existing structures at the shopping center. Landscaping for Phase I a
enhanced 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 I a 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 I a also did not
employ highly reflective materials which could contribute to glare. Light and glare impacts
associated with Phase I a were less than significant. Thus aesthetics and light implications of
Phase la are within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified (Addendum, pp. 36-37)
3. Phase Ib Impacts
Heights of the new Phase Ib retail buildings would be approximately 25 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 Ib structures and stores would appear as one to two
stories depending on the vantage point. The finished elevations of the Phase I b retail 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 I 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 I b 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 I b 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 Ib would not be located within its view corridor. Due to their height and 10Gation,
the Phase Ib 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 northern parking structure of the Westfield property would not
be affected by the Phase I b improvements. (Addendum, p. 44)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 6
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
The Phase I b buildings would also present substantially more varied building fonus and
architectural character than the existing shopping center's west fac,:ade does at present. Bu.ilding
materials would reflect a contextual inspiration with an emphasis on California textures and
colors and include varied architectural details. Phase I b would also incorporate a landscape plan
that would be in keeping with the existing landscaping theme. Overall, Phase Ib's architectural
design and landscaping would complement the existing shopping center, and Phase I b would
have a less than significant impact on existing visual character. (Addendum, p. 44)
With regard to light and glare, Phase Ib would comply with the guidelines for the site
established by previous entitlements. Overall, Phase I b 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 I b, including materials within the central outdoor area of the
Project, would consist of materials that are not highly reflective. Therefore, consistent with the
Findings for' the Certified EIR, light and glare impacts associated with Phase I b would be less
than significant. (Addendum, pp. 44-47)
4. Phase 2 Impacts
While the precise location and design of new buildings has not yet been detenuined,
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
design 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 mitigation
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 directly across
the Westfield site at the southeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue, would be
separated from the Project by Huntington Drive, which includes a median with mature
landscaping as well as landscaping. The Methodist Hospital Master Plan and the Recreation
Community Center projects to Westfield Santa projects are generally not within the same view
corridor as the Project. Thus, potential cumulative aesthetic impacts resulting from
improvements within Westfield Santa Anita and development of the above related projects
would not be significant. (Addendum, p. 48)
City of Arcadia February 2007
W~stfield Sa~t. Anita
Page 7
Statement of Envirorunental 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 architectural compatibility with the historic racetrack grandstand,
preserving views of the grandstands along Huntington Drive and for the racetrack mall
development to provide pedestrian and vehicular 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 I b would not produce new or substantially w,orsen
any aesthetic impacts, including those associated with aesthetic character, views and light and
glare. Rather, aesthetic impacts would be less than significant and such impacts would be within
the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 50)
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 aest.hetics
and views would also be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed in the Certified EIR (Ibid.)
B. Air Quality
1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR
The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that air quality impacts during construction
would be well below significant threshold levels. (Addendum, p. 56) 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 nearest homes along Baldwin Avenue and/or
Huntington Drive. Further, while there may be some concerns regarding ACMs within existing
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 8
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
buildings, adequate mechanisms are in place to insure safe exposure for both asbestos abatement
workers as well as the general public. (Addendum, p. 57)
In addition, the Project would maintain a less than significant threshold for
VOC-containing compounds through the use of building materials that are pre-coated under
factory conditions and limiting the amount of paint and other VOC-containing compounds
applied em a given day. (Ibid.)
Regarding localized 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 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 bams, 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 barns. During hours when the shopping center use is
heavy, winds are overwhelmingly from the Project site toward the barns. 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
significant. (Addendum, p. 57-58)
Regarding mobile source impacts to air quality, there is only a limited potential for
reducing any large percentage of these Project impacts since all potentially significant air quality
impacts come from mobile source emissions and are beyond the direct control of the Project
Applicant. 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
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
Arcadia 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 i):npacts are considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. (Addendum, p. 58)
Cit)' of A~adia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 high 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:
4.2.3.1. 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 street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjacent
roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried
off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials.
c. Covering trucks or wetting down loads of any dirt hauled to or
from the Project site.
d. Peiforming 10w-NOx emiSSIOns tune-ups on on-site equipment
operating on-site for more than 60 days.
e. Requiring on-site contractors to operate a congestion relief
program including:
Rideshare incentives for construction personnel.
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 through incorporation of the
following measures:
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 10
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
a. Provide preferential parking spaces for employee carpools and
van pools.
b. Provide on-site bus shelters as determined necessary by the
Development Services Director and provide a well-lighted, safe path to the mall
entrances. The design of the new shelters shall be compatible with the design of
the mall and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development
Services Director.
c. Work with the City of Arcadia to implement a public outreach
program that promotes alternative methods of transportation through information
kiosks located in the mall. (Addendum, pp. 55-56)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Air quality impacts for Phase I a 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 less
than significant. In addition, similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR, with
incorporation of mitigation measures, construction emissjons associated with Phase I a were less
than significant. (Addendum, p. 58)
3. Phase 1 b Impacts
Construction
During construction of Phase Ib, regional emissions of CO, NOx, ROC, sax, PMIO, and
PMz.5 would be below the significance thresholds set forth by the SCAQMD. Thus, such
impacts would be less than significant without incorporation of mitigation measures. These
emissions represent the peak-construction day, and as such, average daily emissions would be
considerably lower. (Addendum, p. 60)
Construction of Phase Ib 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 PMIO and PMz.5 concentrations of lOA Ilg/mJ 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 constmction of Phase I b would yield a maximum off-site individual cancer
City of Ar~adia
February 2007
We:nfield Santa Anita
Page II
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
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 cumul~tively
exceed the maximum individual cancer risk often in one million, Project-related toxic emission
impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Projected construction emissions associated with Phase 1 b would not result in any
exceedances of the SCAQMD daily construction emission significance thresholds. As such,
similar to the Project studied in the Certified EIR, Phase 1 b construction impacts would be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
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 constru,ction
emission associated with Phase 1 b would not result in any exceedances of the SCAQMD daily
construction emissions significance thresholds. As such, similar to the Project studied in the
Certified EIR Phase Ib construction impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 61)
Operation
Operational emissions associated with Phase Ib would be within the envelope of
emissions provided in the Certified EIR. Overall, projected emissions from Phase 1 b
development would be approximately 17 percent of CO, 8 percent of NOx, 19 percent of PMIO,
and 6 percent of ROC of the emissions projected in the 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 1 b would
not exceed the SCAQMD daily significance 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 1 b would not be significant. PM2.5 emissions were not calculated in the
Certified EIR for the Project since SCAQMD only adopted standards for PM2.5 within the past
few months. Thus, a comparison of PM2.5 emissions from Phase I b with those for the Project
within the Certified EIR is not feasible. However, operational emissions of PM2.5 for Phase 1 b
are less than the new SCAQMD recommended significance threshold. In addition, cumulative
operational air quality impacts would not be significant for Phase I b development, contrary to
the Project studied in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, p. 62)
Localized CO emissions generated by Phase 1 b 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
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Wntfield Santa Anita
Page 12
Stalement of Environmental Effects and Fjndings
due to mobile source emissions. Consequently, sensitive receptors in the area would not be
significantly affected by CO emissions. (Addendum, p. 62-63)
Since Phase Ib 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
Ib would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. (Addendum, pp. 6.4-65)
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. 65)
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)
Localized CO emtsstOns 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 are 31 related projects identified within the general 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 all feasible mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts. 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.
(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 significant 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 contribute to the cumulative air quality problems in
the South Coast Air Basin due to the generation of motor vehicle traffic, resulting in a significant
unavoidable adverse impact. As the air quality impacts of Phase lb and Phase 2 would also
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Wntfield Santa Anita
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 significant construction emissions. Contrary to the analysis
for the Project studied within the Certified EIR, Phase I b would not exceed the thresholds set by
the SCAQMD for regional operational emissions. Overall, air quality impacts associate9 with
Phase 1 b 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 identified 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 to regional seismicity are anticipated. (Addendum, pp. 72-73)
The Certified EIR also concludes that 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. Similarly,
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
compacted and covered by pavement and there is no evidence to suggest that the soils are not
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 anticipated. (Addendum, p. 73)
Further, as concluded in the Certified EIR, no liquefaction hazards were identified for the
Project site. Although the alluvial' deposits underneath the 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)
City of Arc.dia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 14
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
In addition, the Certified EIR concluded that cumulative geotechnical impacts would be
reduced to less 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 mitigation measures below, any potential geotechnical impacts from the
Project were concluded to be reduced to less than significant. (Ibid)
4.3.3.1. All grading operations will be conducted in conformance with
the applicable City of Arcadia Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of
the Uniform Building Code (for seismic criteria). (Addendum, p. 72)
4.3.3.2. The grading and foundation plans. including foundation loads,
shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer. The findings and
recommendatiolls of the Soils Engineer shall be compiled in a geotechnical report
and submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval prior to issuance of.
grading permits. (Ibid.)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Phase la development is subject to strong seismic groundshaking during a seismic event.
However, Phase la was completed in accordance with the mitigation 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 forth in a specific geotechnical report prepared by a registered 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 lb Impacts
Approximately 200,946 cubic yards of earthwork (i.e., total soil handled and moved)
would be required for the Phase I b improvements. Phase I b would be developed in accordance
with the City of Arcadia's regulatory requirements regarding 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 significant. (Addendum, p.
74)
City of An:adia
Febr\.1ary 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page IS
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Phase Ib development would be subject to strong seismic groundshaking 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 geological implications of
Phase Ib would be less than significant and would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in
the Certified EIR. (Ibid)
4. Phase 2 Impacts
Development of Phase 2 would be completed in accordance with the City of Arcadia's
regulatory requirements regarding grading and erosion control, UBC requirements, and the
recommendations set forth in a site specific geotechnical report to be prepared by a regfstered
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 hazards 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 would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 75)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not produce new or substantially worsen geological impacts. Consistent
with the Findings for the Certified EIR, geological impacts would be reduced to les~ than
significant levels with the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR
for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. No new mitigation measures would be required.
Therefore, geological implications of Phase Ib would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 75-76)
Furthermore, it is expected that subsequent development of Phase 2 would not produce
new or substantially worsen geological impacts. With incorporation of the mitigation mellsures,
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 16
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Phase 2's impacts on geology would also be reduced to less than significant and would be within
the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid)
D. Land Use/Planning
1. Project Impacts
The Certified EIR concluded that since the Project's proposed uses are consistent with
the existing commercial uses at the Project site, no potential land use impacts are associated with
the Project. In addition, since the existing uses and the Project consist of an enclosed mall, no
significant land use impacts related to the existing parking area are anticipated. Further, the
proposed restaurant within the northerly restaurant pad is likely to be enclosed and would limit
potential odor related impacts from the 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 commercial uses,
an existing six- to eight-foot landscaped berm along Baldwin Avenue would reduce any potential
land use compatibility impacts. As a result no significant impacts are anticipated. (Addendum.
p,79)
Regarding the potential "worst-case" scenario of construction 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 landscaped 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 are anticipated. (Ibid)
The Project is consistent with all the elements of the General Plan, with the exception 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"). Further,
the Project fully complies with or meets the intent of the majority of SCAG's ancillary/advisory
policies and is consistent with SCAG's employment forecasts for the City of Arcadia. Therefore,
no significant 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 area, 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. In 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
ell)' of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 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 Project shall be designed in accordance with all relevant
development standards and regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, City
Council Ordinance 1425 and Resolution 4185, as amended. (Addendum, p. 79.)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Phase la consisted of the expansion of Westfield Santa Anita by 255,943 square feet of
new GLA, adjacent to existing buildings and within the building envelope considered in the
Certified EIR. New uses for Phase la (e.g., restaurant, multiplex theatre, specialty stores)
complement and support the commercial uses that were already established. In addition, Phase
I a did not result in any significant impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, hazards or
viewsheds. Therefore, Phase la 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 I a is consistent with the land use and planning regulations set forth for the site,
including the site's C-2 zoning and Commercial General Plan land use designation. 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 heights 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 Certified EIR 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 Ib Impacts
Phase Ib improvements would be developed adjacent to existing buildings and within the
building envelope considered in the Certified EIR. The uses within Phase I b (e.g., Tetail,
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 Ib uses within the site from the
residential uses within the vicinity. In addition, the proposed Phase Ib improvements would be
separated from the Racetrack and associated parking uses by the existing shopping center
structures. Phase I b would not result in any significant impacts associated with traffic, noise, air
quality, hazards or viewsheds. Thus, the Phase Ib uses would be compatible with existing uses
City ot Arcadi.
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 18
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
in the Project vicinity and would not divide an established community. Therefore, land use
compatibility impacts of Phase I b would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 81)
The retail and restaurant uses within Phase I b would be consistent with uses permitted
under the site's underlying C-2 zoning. In addition, the Phase Ib 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 Ib would
also be developed in accordance with the Design Guidelines set forth by Resolution 6199. With
regard to the "H8" Zoning overlay for the site, the building heights within Phase 1 b would be
much lower than the maximum 85-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. In addition, with the proposed Phase Ib 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 I b generally supports the relevant
policies set forth in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Phase Ib 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 I b development would
support those policies regarding economic viability, infill development and redevelopment.
Thus, impacts of Phase Ib associated with consistency with regional plans would be less than
significant. (Ibid)
4. Phase 2 Impacts
Phase 2 would include up to approximately 229,057 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. (1bid)
Phase 2 would also be subject to the mitigation measure described above, the zoning
standards and design guidelines set forth for the site by the Municipal Code (including Ordinance
2135 and Ordinance 2136), as well as Resolution 6199. As Phase 2 would be required to
undergo the architectural design 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
February 2007
Westfitld Santa Anita
Page 19
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
significant. Overall, land use implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed in the Certified EIR. (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-I and S-I to R-I (Residential),
S-I (Special UselHorse 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 cultural 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 limited to the
expansion of existing uses on the same site and would be subject to existing land use regulations
and controls (i.e., zoning, General Plan designations, etc.). Assuming compliance wjth all
applicable standards, it is anticipated that cumulative growth would be consistent with the City's
General Plan and other land use regulations, and thus, cumulative impacts with regard to land
use consistency would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 83)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not produce any new or substantially worsen Jand use impacts.
Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase 1 b impacts with regard to land use and
planning would be less than significant with incorporation of the mitigation measure. No new
mitigation measures would be required. Therefore, land use implications of Phase I b 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 measure,
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. (Ibid)
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 buildings, such that
City of Arndia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 20
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
temporary construction activity impacts, even during maximum noise generation, would be less
than significant. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure, construction noise
impacts would be reduced to a level of insignificance: (Addendum, p. 86)
4.5.3.1 Construction activities are prohibited between the hours of 7
P.M. and 7 A.M. Monday through Saturday. (Draft E1R, p. 4-87.) Construction is
prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless authorized by the Building Official.
For operational noise, the Findings 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 change the noise
environment. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant. (Ibid)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
As development of Phase la 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 significant. (Addendum. p. 89)
Commercial activity associated with Phase la is similar to that associated with uses
already on the site and includes retail deliveries, retail trash collection, customer loading, and,
parking. The Phase 1 a improvements are located within the northeastern portion of the site.
Thus, commercial activity from Phase la is generally buffered from residential uses along
Baldwin Avenue and along portions of Huntington Drive by other existing on-site commercial
structures. In 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 levels 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
1 b construction would range from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The
average (Leq) noise level 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 levels west of the s}te by
approximately 2.4 dBA CNEL. However, receptors to the west across Baldwin Avenue would
City of ArC:adia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 2t
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
also receive some additional noise attenuation from the benn located along Baldwin Avenue, and
construction noise levels would likely only be intennittently noticeable given that Baldwin
Avenue is a heavily traveled five-lane divided highway with a landscaped median. For
residential uses along West Huntington Drive, ambient noise levels to the south may only
increase by approximately 1.4 dBA CNEL given the distance attenuation. Construction noise
levels to the north near the horse stables loc'ated at Santa Anita Racetrack would be a maximum
of 59 dBA Lcq and below the measured ambient noise level of 61.1 dBA 4q at the stables.
(Addendum, p. 91-92)
Typical construction noise levels at receptor locations would realistically be less than
projected since the noisiest equipment would not be used continuously. Construction contractors
for Phase I b would also be required to implement responsible construction management
practices such as temporary sound barriers or mufflers to reduce noise impacts. Phase I b would
be constructed in compliance with the mitigation measure above regarding construction hours of
operation, and as such, construction noise impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p.
92)
While no noise sensitive uses are located in the Project site, customers may experience
temporary short tenn 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.)
Operation
Outdoor operational activities associated with Phase I b would be similar to existing
commercial retail uses on the Project site and would include retail deliveries, retail trash
collection, customer loading, and parking. Much of the commercial activity associated with
Phase I b would be buffered from nearby residential uses by existing topography (particularly
along Baldwin Avenue due to the existing benn), mature landscaping 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 residential uses
such that local roadway noise would remain the predominant noise source in the Project area.
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 lb. (Addendum, p. 92)
The outdoor space proposed as part of Phase I b would be located within the central
interior portion ofthe Phase I b improvements, with the majority of the outdoor space surroimded
on all sides by the new buildings. This outdoor space may include an outdoor paging system and
outdoor cafe and restaurant seating with amplified music. The average (Lcq) noise level
generated by outdoor area activity (including amplified sound) would be 52 dBA Lcq (I-hour) at
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 22
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
300 feet and 49 dBA Leq (I-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 4610.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code for amplified sound. In addition,
the variation in the topography and proposed heights of the Phase I b buildings would result in
additional attenuation from intervening structures. (Addendum, pp. 92-93)
The maximum traffic noise level increase associated with traffic from Phase 1 b would be
along roadways adjacent to the Project site. The noise level increase would be 0.1 dBA along
Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. By way of reference, a I dBA increase in noise level is
an almost imperceptible increase even under laboratory conditions. Overall, traffic associated
with the Phase I b would not perceptibly change the noise environment and would result in a less
than significant impact. (Ibid)
Vibration
Ground-borne vibration for Phase I b would be generated primarily during the site
clearing, excavation, and grading processes when heavy materials are rnoved. 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 nearest sensitive receptor and well below the Federal Transit
Administration (FT A) 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 FT A established PPV threshold. Excavation for
the parking structure would be conducted using excavators which do not generate substantial
vibration levels. In addition, no pile driving activities would be required during construction of
the proposed structures. (Addendum, p .94)
Post-construction on-site activities would be limited to commercial uses that would not
generate excessive groundbome noise or vibration. As such, potential vibration impacts
associated with Phase Ib would be less than significant, and no mitigation measurl?s 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 benn),
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 intennittently noticeable to nearby residential uses. In addition, as with the
Certified EIR, future development of the remaining entitlement would be subject to the adopted
City or Aradia
February 2007
Westfield S~uita Anit.ll
Page 23
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
mttlgation measures. As a result, construction noise impacts associated with development of
Phase 2 would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 94)
Noise from commercial activity of Phase 2 would be buffered from nearby residential
uses by existing topography (particularly along Baldwin Avenue due to the existing benn),
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 local 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 2.
(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 ElR, 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 groundborne noise or vibration. . Post-
construction on-site activities would be limited to commercial uses that would not generate
excessive groundborne 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 levels. 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
mature landscaping as well as landscaping on either side of the roadway. In addition, the Phase
1 b 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, construction
activities would be sufficiently physically separated by distance and intervening 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 1 b noise level is substantially less than ambient
conditions and would increase the construction noise level from the racetrack mall development
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 Ib improvements or the racetrack mall development project. Other projects within the
vicinity (e.g., Methodist Hospital Master Plan and the recreational community center) are ]Qcated
even further away than the racetrack mall development project and Phase 1 b 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 Ib would 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 located 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 signi ficant. (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 with construction
activities would be less than significant. In addition, as demonstrated above, noise levels
associated with operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures would be required. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR,
Phase I b would not result in new or substantially worsen noise impacts. Therefore, noise
impacts of Phase I b would be within the envelope of environmental impacts evaluated in the
Certified EIR for the Pr~ject. (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
CIl}' of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anit.
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 Certified 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 design standards would ensure that future development 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 significant. With regard to
cumulative impacts, the Findings stated that the need for additional personnel and ma}erials
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. 101)
4.6.1.1 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, fire flows, fire access, access gates,
combustible construction, water availability, fire sprinkler system, etc.
(Addendum, pp. 100-101)
2. Phase 1a 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 leading up to and
after Phase 1 a 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 alarms 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 ManagementfProperty Management professional 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 alarm systems and
City of Arcadia
F~bruary 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 26
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
public announcement voice evacuation system annually, inspects the fire sprinkler system four
times each year, and inspects the fire sprinkler pump annually. (Addendum, pp.1 01-1 02)
Phase la was constructed and is operated in accordance with the applicable City of
Arcadia codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppr~ssion
measures pursuant to thc 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 less
than significant levels with incorporation of the mitigation measure and further reduced with the
enhancements discussed above. (Addendum, p. 102)
3. Phase 1 b 1 mpacts
None of the commercial uses (e.g., retail, specialty stores, etc.) proposed for Phase Ib
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 I b uses would be typical of those generated for
commercial uses, including structure fires, garbage bin fires, vehicle fires, and electrical fires.
(Ibid.)
Phase I b 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 1 b would generate an estimated 15 incremental annual calls for service, resulting in
an increased demand for 0.19 full-time equivalent (FTE) firefighters per year with an associated
annual cost of approximately $20,892. Phase 1 b 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 I b. 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 entirety. Furthermore, Phase 1 b would be required to comply with
applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances and standard conditions regarding fire prevention
and suppression measures. Mitigation measure adopted in the Findings for the Certified EIR and
the following new mitigation 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. 106)
ehy of Arcadia Wea:ttieJd Sant.a Anita
F~bruary 2007
Page 27
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
With implementation of these mitigation measures, Phase Ib 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 substantia1\y alter 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 EJR, as
we1\ as the new mitigation measure identified above. Similar to the Phase I b 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 Ib 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 annual 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 II? and Phase 2 y.'ould
not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. (Addendum, p. 105)
6. Addendum Findings
Based on the discussion above, with incorporation of the mitigation measures together
with the revenue generated by Phase I b that would off-set the incremental costs for fire
protection generated by Phase I b uses, impacts to fire protection services would be reduced to
less than significant levels. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase I b would
not result in new or substantially worsen fire protection impacts. Therefore, fire protection
service impacts of Phase I b would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed in
the Certified EIR. (Addendum. p. 106)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR
The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that potential concerns with regard to
security of the parking 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 Certified EIR also concluded that to the extent that police
department resources arc expanded in an efficient manner in accordance with growth trends, no
significant cumulative impacts related to police protection services are anticipated. (Addendum,
p./08)
4.6.2./ The parking structure(s) shall be designed to create an open
environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the
structure. (Ibid.)
4.6.2.2 A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Arcadia Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
for any structures including the parking structure(s). (Ibid.)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Phase la, 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 current detective bureau. (Ibid.)
The Phase la 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 parking structures have been
implemented for the parking garage area. This new surveillance system together with emergency
Cit)' of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 installed at all entrances to the center. Westfield has also
earmarked funds for a license plate identification program to be implemented by the Police
Department. In addition, supplemental security was implemented to specifically address special
events at the AMC Theatre and the operation of Dave and Busters. (Addendum, 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 la were reduced to less than significant levels. (Addendum,
p. 109)
3. Phase 1 b Impacts
As Phase I b would increase the number of visitors, patrons, and employees on-site, the
demand for police protection services would increase. (Addendum, p. 109) Phase Ib 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 I b 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 I b. (Addendum, pp. 109-110)
In addition, as part of the Project 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 measures 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 I b improvements would also implement the mitigation measures identified in
the Certified EIR regarding the Project, as well as the new mitigation measure provided below
regarding funding to maintain standard 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 times. (Addendum, p. 112)
. Implementation of these mitigation measures together with the existing and proposed
security features on-site would reduce impacts on police protection to less than
significant levels. . (Addendum, p. 110
City of Arcadia Westfield Santa 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 I b
improvements, new commercial uses proposed as part of Phase 2 would also generate
considerable municipal revenue that would be sufficient to cover the costs 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. 110-111)
5. Cumulative Impacts
Related projects in the project vicinity identified in conjunction with development of
Phase I b and buildout of Phase 2, would cumulatively increase the demand 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 I b and Phase 2 would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable
impact. (Addendum, p. Ill)
6. Addendum Findings
. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR as
well as a mitigation measure provided above, together with the revenue generated by
Phase I b that would offset the incremental costs for police protection generated by
Phase I b uses, impacts to police protection services would be reduced to less than
significant. As such, Phase Ib would not produce new or substantially worsen
impacts with regard to police protection. Therefore, police protection impacts of
Phase 1 b would be within the envelope of environmental impacts analyzed In the
Certified EIR. . (Addendum, p. 112)
Furthennore, 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 that would offset the incremental costs for
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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.)
G. Transportationffraffic
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 duriog 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 are 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 Project's
contribution to the significant cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant with
implementation of the following mitigation measures. (Addendum, p. 125)
4.7.3.1. In order to mitigate the traffic problems, there are two means by which
traffic mitigations may be paid:
a. The Project applicant shall participate in area wide traffic
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 capacity 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
Program by the time building permits are issued for the Project, the Project shall
participate in the area wide traffic improvements identified in the City's
Transportation Master Plan, as adopted, on a pro rata 'fair share" basis (i.e.,
"nexus" formula). A nexus based formula would ensure that the Project fully
compensates for its share of the cost of improvements to roadways within or near
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Wf:Stfield Santa Anita
Page 32
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
the study area that may be impacted by the Project. A nexus study to determine
''fair share" responsibility shall be completed by the Project Applicant at the time
engineering plans 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)
4.7.3.2. The Project Appl!cant shall be required to complete or bond
for the cost of engineering and construction for the following improvements prior
to issuance of Building Permits within Phase I (up to 400,000 square feet GLA). .
If an improvement is identified in the City's adopted Transportation Master Plan,
the City may require that the applicant provide the City with the cost of said
improvement(s) rather than construct the improvement(s). The funding provided
shall be used to construct the improvement identified in the Transportation
Master Plan. The Project specific improvements are asfollows:
a. Foothill Boulevard @Baldwin Avenue (If)
Add a separate right turn lane on the northbound approach.
b. 1210 EB Ramps @ Baldwin A venue
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 @ Rosemead Boulevard
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 signal plans shall be prepared and submitted
to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works for review and
approval. (Addendum, pp. 121-122)
4.7.3.3. The Project Applicant shall be required 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 City's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the
City 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 identified in the
Transportation Master Plan. The Project specific improvements are as follows.
a. Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 33
Statement of Environmental Effects and Fjndings
Add a separate right turn lane on the westbound approach.
b. Driveway C@BaldwinAvenue
Add a separate right turn lane on the westbound approach.
c. Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue
Add a second northbound left turn lane and also add a separate right turn lane on
the eastbound approach.
d. Duarte Road@BaldwinAvenue
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 northbound 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 turn lane on the northbound approach.
i. Huntington Drive @ Holly Avenue
Add a second southbound right turn lane. Addendum, pp. 122-123)
4.7.3.5. The Project Applicant's final design for any new internal
circulation alterations/changes regarding the internal circulation system shall
comply with the following design guidelines to the satisfaction of the City 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 and incorporate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle.
access/connections.
City of Arcadia
February 2007
WCitfield Santa Anita
Page 34
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
b. Primary circulation shall be provided by the ring road. The site
circulation system shall be designed to encaurage use af the ring raad and
discaurage use af the perimeter roadways for movement from ane part af the site
to. anather. Horizantal curvature and sight distances shall be designed far at
least 30 miles per haur (mph). Curve radii and sight distance requirements far
the ring road shall be the same as far the majar callectar raads.
c. On siie vehicular volumes and speeds shall be controlled by the
physical design of the parking lots and the perimeter raadway in arder to reduce
the patential and number af serious pedestrian vehicular canflicts. The maximum
width of the perimeter raads shall not exceed 29 feet, and the minimum inside
radii shall be between 30 and 50 feet. All perimeter raads shall be designed as .
fire lanes so that no stopping/no parking rules can be enforced.
d. Landscaping shall be used for delineation af on site circulation
features and to discourage drivers from traversing designated areas
e. The (three way) intersectians shall be used for all 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
intersections and an horizontal curves. Minimum speeds for sight distance
determination shall be 20 mph an parking aisles and perimeter raads, and 30 mph
on the ring road. (Addendum, pp. 123-124)
2. Phase 1a Impacts
Construction of Phase I a occurred in accordance with City requirements. These
requirements include submitting haul routes to the City for approval and limiting construction
truck trips during peak hours. Thus, construction traffic impacts were less than significant.
(Addendum, p. 125)
The existing uses, which include Phase Ia, result in a total of 37,132 daily trips, which
includes 3,432 P.M. 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 prepared for the Phase Ib Supplemental analysis showed
that the three improvements were not necessary to mitigate the actual impacts of Phase I a
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.Df Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 35
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
improvements when designs are complete. Thus, the Phase I a improvements resulted in a less
than significant traffic impact. (Addendum, 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, internal road widths, and clearance to sky heights). Therefore, ,Phase
la impacts to emergency access were less than significant. (Addendum, p. 127)
3. Pha.se 1 b Impa.cts
Construction
Construction traffic from Phase 1 b would consist of trips generated by employee vebicles
(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 street system. The potential conflict between construction worker traffic and traffic
to/from the adjacent Racetrack would also be minimal as construction trips would occur during
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 1-210, it is likely that
the truck haul route would utilize Baldwin Avenue directly to the 1-210 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 en.tering
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 I b
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 requiremeQ.ts for
operating hours. (Addendum, pp. 128-129)
Furthermore, construction of Phase Ib 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
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 36
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
would vary over the course of the construction period. Overall, construction traffic impacts
would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 129)
Operation
Phase Ib would generate approximately 1,823 weekday daily trips, which includes a net
increase of 176 P.M. peak hour trips. Phase I b traffic impacts for 21 intersections would be
within. the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Project. Two intersections,
(I) Baldwin Avenue East and Foothill Boulevard and (2) Huntington Drive and 1-210 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 1-
210 EB Ramps is influ~:nced by increased eastbound through traffic levels. Baldwin Avenue
EastIFoothill Boulevard is influenced by an increase in the related projects covered in the 2006
traffic study as compared 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 la and Phase lb. (Addendum, pp. 130-133)
On Saturdays, Phase Ibis expected to generate a net increase of approximately 2,282
trips, including a net increase of 232 midday peak hour trips, Phase I b would not result in a
significant impact at any of the intersections during the Saturday midday peak hour. (Addendum,
p.137)
Phase Ib 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 Ib together with
Phase 2, would utilize much less than I 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 I b would not
generate an incremental impact large enough to result in a significant impact at any of the six
ramp terminals 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 arterial streets become congested and traffic diverts to parallel residential
streets to avoid the new congestion points. In the case of Phase I b, neither of these conditions is
projected to occur, and therefore diversion to residential streets is not anticipated. Impacts
would be less than significant. (Addendum, pp. 139-140)
CIty of Arcadia
Februll.ry 2007
Wc:stfield Santa Anita
Page 37
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
An alternate design for the internal 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 alternate 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 fonnation at al1 the stop-control1ed approaches for the two internal intersections.
The - longest queue presently observed at the southbound left-turn lane at the signalized
intersection of Baldwin and Driveway A. This queuing in the future would be less than
significant, similar to what exists today at this intersection. The alternate design of the internal
intersection of Gate 8 and the shopping center ring road would be able to accommodate the
projected Phase 1 b and Phase 2 traffic levels (even on a Race Day) without backups affecting
Baldwin Avenue or Race track entry/exits. (Addendum. p. 141)
Phase I b would not significantly impact any of the 23 study intersections during the
weekday P.M. peak hour or the Saturday midday peak hour. Therefore, adequate circulation and
emergency access of the local street system would be maintained. Additional1y, 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 Department
regarding design and access (e.g., turning radii, internal road widths, and clearance to sky
heights). Therefore, Phase lb would not have a significant impact on emergency access.
(Addendum. p. 142)
Additionally, Phase I b would not include any design features or incompatible uses that
could pose a traffic hazard. Furthennore, Phase 1 b would not include the construction of any
structures (i.e., high tower elements, high-rise buildings) which would have an effect pn air
traffic patterns. Impacts related to these issues would be less than significant. (Ibid.)
4. Phase 2 Impacts
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.M. peak
hour. Development of Phase 2 would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of
Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive during the P.M. peak hour. However, with incorpQTation
of Phase 2 mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, this impact would be reduced to a
less than significant level. An analysis of the impacts of Phase I b and Phase 2 was also
completed in the Traffic Study. Based on that analysis, similar to development of Phase 2,
development of Phase Ib and Phase 2 together would result in one significant intersection
Cit)' of Ar~adia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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.M. 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 Ib 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 significant 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 1 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, emergency 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. 150-151)
6. Transportation Master Plan Impacts
With regard to impacts on long-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 located throughout the
City and identifies a funding mechanism for these improvements. Taking into account traffic
generated by Phase Ib and Phase 2, improvements in addition to those identified in the City's
Transportation Master Plan would be needed to achieve the target VIC for the City by the
General Plan Buildout Year of2015. These are:
. Baldwin Avenue East & Foothill Boulevard - Add a second eastbound right-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.
Cil)' of Arcadia WeitfieJd Santa Ani..
Februal)' 2007
Page 39
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
With incorporation of the two improvements listed above, all study intersectiqns would
meet the City's target VIC of 0.90 or better. These improvements are not the responsibility of
the Westfield Santa Anita Phase Ib or Phase 2 developments. (Addendum, pp. 151-152)
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. 157)
2. Phase la Impacts
Phase la and improvements to the southeastern parking lot in'August 2005 resulted in a
current on-site parking supply of5,927 spaces. Based on a calculated Code requirement of5,403
parking spaces, there is currently a surplus of 524 parking spaces on-site. (Ibid.)
The existing shopping center with Phase la 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 la 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 ~f Phase I a are less than
significant. Thus, parking impacts of Phase I a are within the envelope of impacts analyzed in
the Certified EIR. (Addendum, pp. 157-158)
3. Phase 1 b Impacts
Upon buildout of Phase Ib, a total parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would be
provided on-site. With completion of Phase I b, 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,I58)
City ot Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 40
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Development of Phase Ib 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 be sufficient t~ 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 parking management plan each year to address parking
demand during December weekends. With this parking management plan as a Project feature,
parking impacts of Phase Ib would be less than significant. (Addendum. pp. 158-159)
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 7,235 parking spaces,
thus exceeding the City requirement of6,698 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 1,275 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 parking 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
employee parking during December weekends would also be implemented for Phase 2. ,Thus,
parking impacts of Phase 2 would be less than significant 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 anticipated to provide on-site
parking in accordance with City code requirements. The racetrack mall development project
would contribute substantially to the cumulative parking demand in the Project area. It is
expected that as part 0 f 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 Ib and Phase 2 would include a
Project feature that would ensure that sufficient parking would be provided for Westfield Santa
Anita. Thus, cumulative parking impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, p, 160)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 41
Statement of Environmental Effects and F,indings
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b 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. (1bid.)
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, .
(Ibid. )
H. 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 Project's electrical
consumption. Further, Southern 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)
4.8.1.1. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with SeE prior to the
issuance of grading permits to address potential conflicts between 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 SeE prior to the issuance of grading permits. In addition, Phase I a
also complied with the energy conservation requirements within Title 24 as well as the C;ity 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 I a were less than
significant. (Addendum. p. 162)
3. Phase Ib Impacts
Phase I b would generate an electrical demand of approximately 1,558,250 kilowatt-hours
per year. Phase Ib's electrical consumption would be only a limited fraction (approximately 18
City of Art.dia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 42
Statement of Environmental Effects 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
Ib improvements, As with Phase la, Phase Ib 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 I b 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 electricity. Consistent with the Findings
for the Certified EIR, Phase I b's impacts on electrical service would be less than significant with
incorporation of the mitigation measure. Thus electrical impacts of Phase I b would be within
the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR, (Addendum, pp, 162-163)
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 electrical
demand forecasted for the Project studied in the eertified EIR (8,671,250 kilowatt-hours per
year). As with Phases la and Ib, 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 eode
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 electrical
consumption impact ofI'hase 2 would be less than significant. (Addendum, p, 164)
5. eumulative 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 year. Each of
these projects would be expected to comply with the energy conservation measures set forth in
Title 24 as well as local Code requirements pertaining to electricity. (Ibid.)
In addition, coordination with the electrical service provider to ensure that new uses
within each of these related projects can adequately be accommodated would be required,
Moreover, it is expect(,d that service providers would be able to expand services to supply
electrical energy for regional growth. 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
February 2007
Westfif:ld Santa Anita
Page 43
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to electrical
service, Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, implementation of the mitigation
measure would reduce impacts to electrical service to a less than significant level. Therefore,
electrical service impacts of Phase I b would be within the envelope of the impacts analyzed in
the Certified EIR, (Addendum, p. 166)
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 the Certified EIR.
Natural Gas Service
1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR
As concluded in the Findings for the Certified EIR, Southern California 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 natural 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 I a is thus within the 180,313 cubic feet/day forecasted in the Certified
EIR for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. Currently, natural gas service for Phase I a is
adequate, Gas service for Phase la was provided pursuant to the SCG's policies and extension
rules on file with the California 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. Phase 1 b Impacts
Operation of Phase I b 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
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 44
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
would be required, Thus, as a subset of the Project studied in the Certified EIR, Phase Ib 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 Ib would be provided in accordance with the SCG's policies and
extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission, In addition, Phase Ib
win comply with the energy conservation measures for natural gas set forth in Title 24. As such,
Phase I b impacts on natural gas service would be less than significant. Thus, natural gas service
impacts of Phase I b would be the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR.
(Addendum. p. 168)
4. Phase 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
measures for natural gas set forth in Title 24. Consistent with the findings of the Certified EIR,
natural gas service impacts would be less than significant. (Addendum, pp, 168-169)
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 seG's
policies as well as energy conservation measures regarding natural gas set forth in Title 24.
Moreover, given that the California 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 regional growth. Thus, cumulative natural gas
impacts associated with development of the Project studied in the Certified EIR together with the
related projects would be less than significant. (Addendum, p, 169)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not result in new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to natural
gas service, Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase I b impacts on natural gas
service would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As such,
natural gas impacts of Phase I b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed for the
Certified EIR. (Ibid.)
City of Arcadia
February 2007.
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 45
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 natural gas service, phase 2's impacts on natural gas
service would also be less than significant and within the envelope of impacts analyzed -in the
Certified EIR. (1bid.)
Telephone
1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR
The Findings 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 service in the area. In addition,
Pacific Bell 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,],1.The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Pacific Bell prior to
the issuance of grading permits regarding the need for additional facilities and/or
easements. (1bid.)
2. Impacts of Phase ]a
Phase I a 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 I a generates a fraction of
the telephone service demand identified in the Certified EIR. 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 developmen! were
less than significant. (Ibid.))
3. Impacts of Phase Ib
Since the proposed Phase I b represents only about 19 percent ofthe floor area and would
comprise the same types of uses as were studied in the Certified EIR 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 I b
improvements at the site. Additionally, Phase Ib would incorporate the mitigation measure cited
in the Findings for the Certified EIR, which requires coordination with AT&T. Consistent with
City of ArcadIa
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 46
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts on telephone service from Phase Ib development
would be less than significant. (Addendum, p. 173)
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 the mitigation measure cited in the
findings for the Certified EIR. Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, impacts on
telephone service from development of Phase 2 would be less than significant. Thus, telephone
service implications of Phase 2 would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the
Certi fied EIR. (ibid.)
5. eumulative 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. (1bid.)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to
telephone service, Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase I b impacts to
telephone service would be less than significant. Telephone service impacts of Phase I b 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. (1bid.)
Water
1. Project Impacts in the eertified EIR
The Findings for the Certified EIR concluded that the area water distribution system
would provide adequate flow to the Project structures. Further, "according to the Arcadia Public
City of Arc:adia
February 2007
Wntfield Santa Anita
Page 47
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
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 potential
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 325
4,8.4.2.
Regulations.
The Project applicant shall comply with the Tille 17-Backjlow
4.8.4.3, The Project applicant shall replace or repair detector check'
valves if leaking is found, (Ibid.)
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
of Arcadia, (Ibid.)
2. Phase 1 a Impacts
Phase I 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 I a. In addition, the improvements have been constructed and
are operated in accordance with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code regarding
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, 178-179)
3. Phase 1 b Impacts
Phase Ib 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
I b 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 I,
0,27 percent of multiple dry water year 2, and 0.34 percent of multiple dry water year 3, In
addition, the incremental demand from Phase I b would be well below the surplus of water
supply sources identified in the UWMP. (Addendum, p. 180)
The existing infrastructure would be adequate to accommodate Phase I b' s water demand.
With implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, Phase I b would
not adversely affect water service. In addition, the improvements would be constructed and
operated in accordance with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code regarding
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 48
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
water conservation, Consistent with the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase I b impacts on
water supply and water service would be less than significant. (1bid.)
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 PlJase 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 California Administrative Code
regarding water conservation. Consistent with the Findings for 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 cumulative 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. In 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 rt:lated
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 not be expected to occur as
a result of development of the related projects together with the Project. (Ibid.)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b would not produce new or substantially worsen impacts with regard to water
service or water supply, eonsistent 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
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 49
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
measures. Accordingly, Phase I b water demand would be within the envelope of impacts
analyzed for the Project studied in the Certified EIR. (Addendum, 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 level 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 EIR the Project wouid 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 pay all required sewer connection
fees to eSDLAe prior to issuance of a sewer connection permit. (Ibid.)
Presuming future development is generally 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 significant cumulative impacts to wastewater
services are anticipated. (Ibid.)
2. Phase]a 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 Control Plant. In addition,
the Phase la 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
regarding payment of sewer connection fees, Thus, wastewater impacts of Phase I a were less
than significant. (Ibid.)
City of Artadi.
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 50
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
3. Phase Ib Impacts
Phase Ib would generate 37,375 gpd of. wastewater, representing 0,29 percent of the
excess capacity at the S:m Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, and 0.06 percent of the excess
capacity at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant. In addition, Phase Ib wastewater generation
would be within the 195,000 gpd forecasted in the Certified EIR for the Project. Additionally,
with implementation of the mitigation measure cited in the Findings for the Certified EIR, Phase
I b 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 anal)'Eed 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 servrces 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
Plant, respectively. Thus, both facilities would have adequate treatment capacity to serve related
projects and the Project studied in the Certified EIR, In the event that additional 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, significant cumulative sewer service impacts
would not be expected due to related projects, (Addendum. p. 187)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b 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 ;ervice
impacts of Phase I b would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR.
(Ibid.)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
We'tfield Santa Anita
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 would 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 Industrial 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 the mtltgation
measures below would reduce all potential solid waste impacts to 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
space appropriated for the support of recycling, including the provision of'
adequate storage areas and access for recycling vehicles, (Addendum, p. 191)
4.8.6,2, All future refuse collection contracts serving the Project site
shall include the collection ofrecyclables, (Addendum, p, 192)
Since the Project includes mitigation measures to reduce the amount of waste requiring
landfill disposal, the Project's contribution to cumulative solid wastes is not considered
significant. (Ibid.) .
2. Phase 1 a 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 of the
excess capacity at the Puente Hills landfill. Phase I a incorporated storage and colljlction
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 eertified EIR reduced solid waste impacts to a less than
significant level. Thus, solid waste impacts of Phase la were within the envelope of impacts and
analyzed in the Certified EIR. (Ibid.)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
W6tfield Santa Anita
Page 52
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
3. Phase Ib Impacts
Construction of Phase I b would require the export of approximately 159,352 cubic, yards
of soil. Additionally, construction of Phase I b 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 proj ect construction. (Ibid.)
Within the expectations of an annual generation of 3,900 tons established in the Ce,rtified
EIR, Phase I b would generate 524.7 tons of solid waste per year or less than 0.01 percent of the
excess capacity at Puente Hills Landfill, Phase Ib 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 EIR
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
Ib 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 0.0 l6 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 less than signifi'cant 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. eumulative Impacts
Cumulative growth associated with related projects would increase the demand for solid waste
disposal capacity at landfills, Related projects, in conjunction with the Projectwould generate an
estimated 19,952 tons of waste per year and would contribute to an increased demand for
disposal capacity. This demand for solid waste would represent less than 1,5 percent of the solid
waste disposal in Los Angeles County, In addition, cumulative projects would be subject to
City of Arcadia
Februa.ry 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 I b 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 significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures, Thus, solid waste
impacts of Phase Ib would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR.
(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 mitigation 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 Significant
Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Mineral
Resources
1. Project Impacts in the Certified 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 farmlands in the City. In addition, the Project will not
conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses, (Addendum, pp. 199-200)
With regard to biological resources, the Findings for the Certified EIR concluded
that are no unique or sensitive 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. 200)
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.
City of Anadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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
are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (1bid.)
The Findings for the Certified ErR 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 are anticipated and no mitigation is required, (Ibid.)
2. Impacts of Phase la
Phase I a was developed entirely within an urbanized site wherein agricultural resources,
cultural resources and mineral resources are not known to exist. As such, Phase 1 a did not have
impacts on these resources. Additionally, trees that were removed during Phase I a were
replaced with additional landscaping. Thus, any potential impacts on biological resources were
less than significant. (Addendum. p, 201)
3. Impacts of Phase Ib
As with Phase la, Phase Ib is proposed to be developed entirely within the urbanized
site, within which no agJicultural resources or mineral resources are known to exist. Therefore,
development of Phase I b would have no impacts on any of these resources. Additionally, trees
that would be removed during Phase I b would be replaced with improved landscaping. In
addition, as part of removal of existing trees during Phase I b, 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 significant. In addition, any
archeological 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 Ib 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 I b within the Westfield site, existing
shopping center buildings would be located between the Phase I b improvements arid the
Racetrack property, so that development of Phase Ib within the Westfield site would not affect
viewsheds of historic structures within the Santa Anita Park Historic District. Overall,
implications of Phase I b 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, (Ibid.)
City of Arc=adia
February 2007
Wntficld Santa Anita
Page 55
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
4. Impacts of Phase 2
Phase 2 would be developed entirely within the urbanized site. As discussed above, the
site is located in area 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 the relevant
requirements of the MBT A. 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 regard to cumulative impacts, the site and immediate surrounding area is fully
developed with urban uses that have been previously graded and paved. Related projects in 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 Ib improvements, The Westfield Santa
Anita site does not contain any historic resources and thus would not have any impact on any
historic resources. Therefore, Phase I b and Phase 2 would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to such an impact. (Addendum, p, 202)
6. Addendum Findings
As with the Project studied in the Certified EIR, impacts related to agricultural resources,
biological resources, cultural resources, or mineral resources would be less than significant.
Therefore, implications of Phase I b 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 I b 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 eertified 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
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 56
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
materials is located on-site and there are no known natural or any other hazards known to exist
on the Project site. Therefore, the hazardous materials impact to the public and/or environment
is not considered significant and no mitigation is required, (Addendum, p. 203)
2. Impacts of Phase la
Phase I a did not develop uses that generate, use or dispose of hazardous materials which
could pose public health hazards. In addition, Phase I 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 1 b
Phase I b would not develop uses that generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials
which could pose public health hazards, nor would Phase I b include the storage of explosive or
combustible materials, Therefore, Phase I b impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials
would be less than significant. (Addendum, p, 204)
4. Impacts of Phase 2
Development of Phase 2 would complete the Project studied in the Certified EIR and
would be comprised of the same types of uses as Phase la and Phase Ib, 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, l!se, 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 Ib with regard to
hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant. Thus, hazards and hazardous
City of Arudia
February 2007
Wntfield S.nta Anita
Page 57
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
materials implications would be within the envelope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR for
the Project studied in the Certified EIR. (1bid.)
Hydrology/Water Quality
1. Project Impacts in the eertified 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 pattern, or long-term run-off are anticipated. The
Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain, In addition, the Project Applicant would
be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution 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 ]a
With the Phase la improvements, the amount of impervious surfaces within Westfield
Santa Anita did not increase. As part of development of Phase I a, the following conditions set
forth in the staff report for architectural 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 drAinage
system and the pump drainage system (if applicable). Computations should show
hydrology, hydraulics, elevations and all the details required on the City's "Pump
Drainage" sheet.
. Submit separate erosion control plan prepared by registered civil engineer for City's
approval.
Development of Phase la also occurred in accordance with the NPDES requirements
including preparation of a SWPPP and Standard Urban Storrnwater Management Plan (SUSMP).
No substantial changes to existing drainage patterns, groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff
quantities or velocities, or degradation of water quality occurred as part of Phase I a, As such,
Phase la impacts to hydrology and surface water quality were less than significant and were
within the envelope of impacts set forth in the Initial Study that is part of the Certified EIR,
(Addendum, pp, 208-209)
City of Arcadia
February 2007
We5tfi~ld Santa Anita
Page 58
Statement of Environmental Effects and findings
3. Impacts of Phase Ib
Phase I b would be developed on an eXlstmg surface parking area. The Phase 1 b
expansion of Westfield Santa Anita would not affect the overall drainage patterns or increase the
existing amount of stonn 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 underground storm drain system.
As such, no substantial changes associated with existing drainage patterns, 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 significant. (Addendum,
pp.209-210)
As part of construction and operation of Phase I b, 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 water quality 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. (Ibid.)
4. Impacts of Phase 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 after buildout of
Phase 2 would remain largely the same as existing and post Phase I 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 re~ult in
substantial changes associated with existing drainage patterns, groundwater 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 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. 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,.210) ,
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 wOl}ld be
subject to NPDES permit requirements for both construction and operation, including
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 treatment measures to avoid significant impacts
to hydrology and surface water quality. Thus, with compliance with regulatory requirements,
cumulative impacts related to hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant.
(Addendum, pp. 210-211)
6. Addendum Findings
With compliance with regulatory requirements, Phase I b 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 Ib 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 EIR. (Addendum, p. 211)
Population and Housing/Recreation
1. Project Impacts in the Certified EIR
The Findings for the Certified ErR concluded that the Project would not involve 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. Howev~r, 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 ~roject
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 ]a
Residential uses were not removed or proposed as part of the Phase I 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 Ia, or 84 more employees than projected by the Certified
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
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 Ia
improvements. (Addendum, p, 213)
Phase I a 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 I a. (Ibid.)'
3. Impacts of Phase 1 b
Residential uses would not be removed or proposed as part of the Phase I b
improvements. Thus, no impacts associated with direct residential population growth or
displacement of housing would occur as part of the Phase I b improvements. Phase, I b 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 filled 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, 214)
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 additional employment opportunities
would be filled by persons who already live within 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 ina substantial
increase in the demand for recreational facilities, Therefore, impacts on recreation services in
the City of Arcadia would be less than significant. (ibid.).
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 61
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
5. eumulative Impacts
As indicated above, the estimated employment increases resulting from Phase la, 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.)
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 <::;ode,
In addition, neither Phase la, Phase I b, nor Phase 2 would result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to impacts on parks and recreational facilities in the area, (Addendum, p. 215)
6. Addendum Findings
Phase I b 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 I b
together with 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.)
III. OTHER eEQA eONSIDERATIONS AND eONCLUSIONS.
I, The City of Arcadia, acting through its City Council and its Department 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 related 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)(I) and (2) of the State CEQA
City of Arcadia
February 2007
Westfield Santa Anita
Page 62
Statement of Environmental Effects and Findings
Guidelines and with respect to the potentially significant impacts analyzed in the EIR,
Phase Ib and Phase 2 do not constitute substantial changes in the Project or
substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that
would involve any new significant environmental effects or result in any substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified potentially significant impacts in any
ofthe analyzed environmental impact categories and that no new mitigation measures
are identified in the Addendum that would modifY the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program adopted in connection with certification of the EIR and which are
incorporated into the Addendum by reference.
4, The City Council finds and determines that, pursuant to Section 15 I 62(a)(3) .of the
State CEQA Guidelines, Phase Ib and Phase 2 neither constitutes nor contains new
information of substantial importance that was not known or could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified as
complete.
5. The City Council finds and determines that no additional environmental impacts other
than those identified in the EIR will have a significant effect or result in a substantial
or potentially substantial adverse effect on the environment as a result of Phase I b
and Phase 2.
Cit)' of Arcadia
Februal)' 2007
Westfield Sant. Anita
Page 63