HomeMy WebLinkAbout6564
RESOLUTION NO. 6564
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE SHOPS AT SANTA ANITA PARK SPECIFIC
PLAN PROJECT AND ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
RECITALS
I, The proposed The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan Project (the "Project") encompasses the
following development for the 304 acre Santa Anita Park property: (I) a 806,405 square foot ("sf') commercial,
retail, and office center, arranged as a new pedestrian-oriented Main Street, to be constructed on the southern
parking lot of the property; (2) relocation of the Saddling Barn io the original 1934 location in the Paddock
Gardens to the west of the existing Kingsbury Memorial Fountain, and demolition of the south ticket gates; (3)
modification of the western portion of the existing Santa Anita Park Grandstand to accommodate construction and
operation of an approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center; (4) a 1.4 acre landscaped open space area linking the
existing Paddock Gardens with the proposed new commercial, retail, and office center; (5) a 3,5 acre water feature
located within a 7,5 acre landscaped open space area at the southern end of the property; (6) improvements to
vehicle and pedestrian access, parking, infrastructure, and other ancillary facilities throughout the property, as
well as ofT site, to support the development, which will result in the demolition of four structures in the stable
area; and (7) a new wireless electric trolley traveling on fixed rails between the expanded Paddock Gardens at the
north end of Main Street in the City of Arcadia (the "City") and the water feature and promenade at the south end
of Main Street.
2, The Project site ("Project Site") is located in the central portion of the City, approximately one-third of a
mile south of Interstate 210, The 304 acre Project Site is bounded by Huntington Drive on the south and east,
Baldwin Avenue and the Westfield Santa Anita mall on the west, and Colorado Place on the north and east.
3, The Project includes the proposed The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan (05-01), General Plan
Amendment (05-01), Zone Change (05-04), Architectural Design Review, and a Development Agreement for the
Project, as further described in Ordinances 2226, 2227, and 2228 and Resolutions 6565 and 6566 (collectively,
with this Resolution, the "Approval Documents"),
4, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res, Code S 21000 et seq,) and
California Code of Regulations ("CCR"), title 14, section 15000 et seq, (the "CEQA Guidelines"), the City is the
lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with the principal responsibility for approving the Project.
5, The purposes of the Project include development of a retail center with a vibrant outdoor Main Street
ambience that provides numerous high quality retail, dining, a cinema, and entertainment venues such that visitors
will be attracted to the Santa Anita Park property throughout the year,
6, On March 23, 2005, the City issued.a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an environmental impact report
("EIR") for a formerly proposed project at the Project Site, and conducted scoping meetings thereon on April 7,
2005,
7, On August 4, 2005, the City issued a second NOP for another former version of the proposed project at
the Project Site, held scoping meetings on August 10, 2005, and circulated for public review and comment an
initial draft environmentai impact report thereon ("Initial Draft EIR"),
8, After further revisions to the proposed development at the Project Site, the City issued a third NOP on
May 12, 2006 (the "Project NOP"), and held a scoping meeting on June 13, 2006, for the purpose of further
soliciting public input regarding the scope and content of the environmental impact report (the "new Draft EIR"),
9, The City received approximately 347 comment letters during the public review period after issuance of
the Project NOP, and 62 persons provided oral comments at the scoping meeting on June 13,2006,
10, The City prepared and released the new Draft EIR for public review on October 23, 2006, The proposed
Project analyzed in the new Draft EIR included a 829,250 sf (not 806,405 sf) commercial, retail, and office center
component arranged as a new pedestrian-oriented Main Street, to be constructed on the southern parking lot of the
property, The new Draft EIR was made available for review at the City Development Services Department and
the Arcadia Public Library during nonnal business hours, as well as on the City's website, which can be found at
www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/. Additionally, a copy was available for purchase 'at cost at The Workshop Print Shop
& Bindery at 407 North Second A venue in the City,
II, Pursuant to CEQA section 21092, the City also provided a Notice of Availability to all organizations and
individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published the Notice of Availability on October 23,
2006, in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area, A Notice of Completion was sent to the State
Clearinghouse on October 23, 2006,
12, During the comment period on the new Draft EIR, the City consulted with and requested comments from
all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section
15086,
13, During the official public review period for the new Draft EIR, the City received approximately 91
written comment letters, a number of comment cards and other comments from the public at a duly noticed public
hearing before the City Planning Commission on November 28, 2006, and one comment letter that incorporated
by reference a number of comments on the Initial Draft EIR, all of which the City responded to in the Final EIR,
14, The public comment period on the new Draft EIR was held open for 53 days, from October 23, 2006 to
December 14, 2006,
15, After consideration of comments received from the public and City Staff and on the recommendation of
the City Planning Commission, changes to the proposed Project were made so that no occupied structures would
be erected over the Arcadia Wash, As as a consequence, the square footage of the cinema and the retail buildings
that had been proposed over the Wash was reduced in size by approximately 22,845 sf to avoid the Wash, In
addition, the proposed Proje<:t was modified to provide for relocation of the Saddling Barn, These changes are
examined in the Additional Environmental Analysis ("AEA"),
16, The City prepared the Final EIR, which consists of the following documents: Draft EIR; Comments and
Responses to Comments (including I st and 2nd set of Additional Responses to Comments); Mitigation,
Monitoring, and Reporting Program ("MMRP" or "MMP"); Corrections and Additions; and the AEA,
17, Pursuant to CEQA section 21092,5, the City provided copies of the Final EIR to all commenting
agencies,
18, The City provided a notice of public hearing of the City Planning Commission on March 19, 2007 on a
proposed recommendation of approval of the Project and the Final EIR, The notice of hearing was mailed to all
organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice, and published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Project area, on February 26, 2007,
19, The City Planning Commission, at its public hearings on March 19,2007 and March 21, 2007, considered
the proposed Project and recommended approval thereof, subject to certain conditions described in the Staff
Report to the City Council on the proposed Project and incorporated into the Approval Documents,
20, In accordance with CEQA section 21092,5, the City provided a notice of public hearing of the City
Council on the Planning Commission and Staff recommendation to certify the Final EIR and adopt the Approval
2
Documents, The notice of hearing was mailed to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested
such notice, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area, on March 19,2007,
21. On April 17, 2007, the Project applicant agreed to withdraw from the proposed project the Simulcast
Center and modification of the Grandstand to accommodate construction and operation of the Simulcast Center.
The withdrawal of the Simulcast Center would not result in a new significant environmental impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact over the Project impacts described in the Final
EIR. In fact, the withdrawal of the Simulcast Center reduces the environmental impacts of the proposed Project.
22, As contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the
Project.
23, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less than significant and do
not require mitigation are described in Section II hereof,
24, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can
be mitigated to a level of less than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR and the MMRP, are described in Section III hereof.
25, Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant and which the City finds
cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV hereof,
26, Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described
in Section VII hereof. Findings regarding significant irreversible environmental changes and commitment of
resources are set forth in Section V and findings regarding growth inducing impacts are set forth in Section VI.
27, Because some environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant cannot be fully
mitigated to a level of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in
the Final EIR and set forth herein, the City Council has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and
other benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable impacts, and has determined that the benefits
of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, and therefore render those impacts "acceptable," and the
City Council has documented its determination regarding significant and unavoidable impacts in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations in Section VIII hereof,
28, Prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the
infonnation and data in the administrative record, including the Final ElR, the staff report on the Project, and the
Approval Documents, and all oral and written evidence presented to the City during all meetings and hearings,
29, All of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon
its review and consideration of all oral and written evidence presented as a whole, including the foregoing
documents and any and all prior public hearings and meetings on the proposed Project held before the City, and
are not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution,
30, The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is adequate for purposes of making
decisions on the merits of the Project.
31, No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City or any additional information submitted
to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review
under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation CEQA Guidelines section 15088,5,
32, All other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council resolves to adopt the findings and statement of overriding
considerations set forth below and to certify the Final EIR:
3
SECTION I
FINDINGS ON CO.\1PLIANCE WITH CEQA AND LEAD AGENCY REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The City has received, independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR and other substantive and
procedural components of CEQA compliance for the proposed Project. The City Council declares that no new
significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines section 15088,5 has been received by the City after
circulation of the new Draft EIR that would require recirculation, The City Council finds that none of the project
modifications described in the Final EIR Additional Environmental Analysis (the "AEA Modifications") would
result in a new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact over the project impacts described in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 7,) The City Council
further finds that elimination of the Simulcast Center (including elimination of modification of the Grandstand to
accommodate construction and operation of the Simulcast Center) would not result in a new significant
environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact of the Project described
in the Final EIR, In fact, the withdrawal of the Simulcast Center reduces the environmental impacts of the
proposed Project. The Final EIR is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated, The Final EIR prepared in connection with the Project
sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing these
effects in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, The Final EIR prepared for the proposed Project has
been completed, and public and agency review procedures required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines have
been completed, in conformance with CEQA and the substantive and procedural requirements of the City's
Municipal Code and other applicable rules and regulations,
All mitigation measures proposed by commenters for the Project, unless adopted and incorporated into
the MMRP or agreed to be undertaken by Developer, have been determined to be infeasible for the reasons set
forth in the record, including without limitation the Final EIR and subsequent additional responses to comments
provided to this City Council.
The City Council has determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including, but not limited to,
the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings on the Project, and submission of
testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the
proposed Project are: (I) less than significant and do 'not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and each
of these impacts will be avoidcd or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified mitigation measures;
or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened
to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures,
SECTION II
FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING SPECIFIC MITIGATION MEASURES
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less
than significant and do not require the imposition of mitigation measures beyond compliance with listed project
requirements 1:
A. Aesthetics:
Impact: Would the proposed Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (new Draft EIR at p, 4, I -20,)
1 Section 1509\ of the CEQA Guidelines does not require specific findings to address environmental effects that an EIR
identifies as "less than significant" where no mitigation is required. These findings nevertheless account for all such effects
identified in the new Draft EIR in this Section II, Listed project requirements, while often acting as mitigation, are not treated
as standard mitigation measures' within these project findings.
4
Finding: The project will have no substantial adverse impacts on scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 6-10,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is not located within the viewshed or corridor of a state-designated scenic
highway, The nearest state-designated scenic highway is located about 10 miles from the Specific Plan Area,
Because the Specific Plan Area is neither located proximate to a state-designated highway, nor within a
designated view corridor associated with a scenic highway, development of the proposed Project would have no
impact on scenic resources within a state scenic highway view corridor. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-23,
Impact 4,1-2,)
Finding: Regarding Views from the Southeast, Looking Northwest (Viewshed C) and Views from the Northeast,
Looking Southwest (Viewshed D), the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on a scenic
vista, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,1-25; Final EIR AEA at pp, 1-3,7-8,)
Explanation: The City's General Plan, Community Development Chapter, designates three key view corridors,
indicated as Viewpoints A, S, and D, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-21.) In addition, the Centennial Way corridor
(Viewpoint C) is considered in this analysis due to its prominence as a major entry point to the Specific Plan
Area, (Id.) Viewpoints A and B are discussed under Section IV below since it is determined that these two
viewpoints have significant and unavoidable impacts,
Views from the Southeast. Looking Northwest (Viewshed C): Foreground views of the proposed
development from commercial and public uses to the southeast, as well as from vehicles traveling northwest along
Centennial Way, would only be slightly altered, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-23,) This area consists of vehicle
circulation and parking areas, as well as associated landscaping just east of the Grandstand, which would remain
the same in the central and northern portions of this view, but the proposed structures would obscure the far
western portion of this view, However, existing and proposed landscaping includes shrubs and shade trees, which
would soften the appearance of the structures in the western portion of the site from off-site views, Existing,
middle-ground views of the central and eastern portion of the Santa Anita Grandstand would remain, Further,
because the Grandstand and the proposed commercial structures would be equal distances from this viewpoint,
the relative heights of the two structures would be more apparent, and the Grandstand would remain the dominant
structure in this viewshed, Similar to existing conditions, limited background views would be available from this
view location following project development. Because the proposed development would not interfere with the
existing focal views of the Grandstand from this location, and would maintain the Grandstand as the dominant
structure in this viewshed, while only partially obscuring views of the existing southern surface parking area, the
impact to this view is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Views from the Northeast. Looking Southwest (Viewshed D): Although the northernmost and
southernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area are currently zoned R-l, and implementation of the proposed
Project would not change this existing zoning designation for the northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area,
the proposed Specific Plan requires that no residential development occur in the northernmost R-l zone, and only
parking and infrastructure improvements would exist in this area, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-24,) Project
requirement PR 4,1 A would ensure that no new residential development would occur in the northernmost R-I
zone of the Specific Plan Area, (Id,; see PR 4,IA, MMRP at p, 3-17.)
Foreground views of and through the proposed development from commercial uses to the northeast, as
well as from vehicles traveling south along West Huntington Drive, would not be substantially altered because the
low wall, existing entry features, and associated sign and ornamental landscaping at the upper "Y," northeast of
Santa Anita Park, would remain, Although the entrance would be closed and replaced with landscaping and a low
wall that matches the existing wall in scale and color, the new wall would not obscure the Grandstand or existing
fencing around the Racetrack oval. (Id,)
Middle-ground views of the Grandstand from this location, as well as from vantage points along Colorado
Place, would be slightly altered: the addition of the Simulcast Center into the western wing of the Grandstand
5
would be visible as a new, vertical surface replacing the upper rows of seats in that portion of the Grandstand,
However, although this represents a change to the existing view, this change would not be considered adverse, as
it would generally be consistent in appearance with similar modifications that were previously completed to
incorporate Sirona's bar and Frontrunners restaurant into the Grandstand, and the Grandstand would remain
clearly recognizable and would remain the dominant structure in this viewshed, The previous modifications are
visible from this viewshed in the eastern portion of the Grandstand interior (as viewed from this perspective) and
would be immediately adjacent to the proposed Simulcast Center, Further, the architectural details in the upper
portions of the seating area in the Grandstand, which would be removed with the proposed Project, are more
difficult to see from this viewshed because they are shaded by' the Grandstand roof. (Id,)
Middle ground views of the southeastern portion of this view would be slightly altered with the proposed
development, as the eastern edge of the proposed commercial development would be visible to the east of the
Grandstand, (Id,) However, because the majority of the proposed commercial and office development is about
30 feet shorter than the Grandstand, these structures would be screened by existing landscaping, as well as by
proposed landscaping (anticipated to be mature within 5-10 years from planting) including trees in the eastern
parking lot, all of which would minimize visual competition of the proposed structures with the Grandstand, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,\-25,) Further, the Grandstand would remain the dominant structure and visual element of this
viewshed, Similar to existing conditions, no background views are available in this viewshed following project
development. Because the proposed development would not adversely alter existing focal views of the
Grandstand from this location, the impact to this view is considered less than significant. No mitigation is
required, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: In response to comments and to conform to the recommendations of City Staff and
the recommendations and conditions of the City Planning Commission, modifications have been made to the
proposed Project since circulation of the new Draft EIR as described in the Final EIR AEA, referred to herein as
the "AEA Modifications", The AEA Modifications include changes to the proposed cinema/theater building, the
retail building, and the West Parking Garage in order to move these building structures off the Arcadia Wash.
(Final ElR AEA at pp, 1-2,) As previously mentioned, neither the cinema/theater building nor the retail building
is visible from any of these viewpoints, Also, while one of the elevator towers of the West Parking Garage is
visible from Viewshed B, even with an increase in height of ten feet, there is no discernable change to the height
of the structure from this viewshed because of the distance from Huntington Drive; the increase in height of the
West Parking Garage, as viewed from Viewshed B, would not result in a new significant environmental impact or
a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. Also, the Grandstand would remain the
dominant structure from Viewsheds C and D, with limited views of the proposed commercial development. (Id. at
p, 8)
In addition, the Project now proposes relocation of the Saddling Barn, instead of demolition and
replacement. The relocated Saddling Barn would be in the same location as the new Saddling Barn evaluated in
the new Draft EIR, As demonstrated by Figures 4,1-3 through 4,1-6, the new Saddling Barn is not visible from
Viewsheds A through D, Similarly, as demonstrated by Figures 4,l-3A Revised, the relocated Saddling Barn
would also not be visible from Viewsheds A through D,
In summary, none of the AEA Modifications would result in new significant environmental impacts or a
substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts with respect to the scenic vistas represented by
Viewsheds A through D, While none of the significance conclusions would change, impacts to Viewshed A
would be slightly greater, as less of the Grandstand would be visible, recognizing that only limited views of the
roofline and flagpoles would be visible under the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft ElR, Impacts to
Viewsheds B through D would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR,
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
6
Impact: Would the Project substantially degrade the eXIsting visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-25, Impacts 4,1-3 and 4,1-4,)
Finding: The Project will have no substantial adverse impacts on aesthetics, including degradation of the existing
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-25-37; Final EIR AEA at pp,
7-10,)
Explanation:
Construction of the Proiect: Construction of the proposed Project and associated infrastructure
improvements would not substantially alter the visual character or quality of the Specific Plan Area or off-site
areas where other improvements would occur. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. .Visual impacts
associated with construction activities would take place primarily within the Specific Plan Area, These visual
impacts could affect surrounding land uses to the south and east. Automobiles traveling along West Huntington
Drive and Baldwin Avenue in the vicinity of Gate 8 would have short-tenn views of the Specific Plan Area during
construction activities, which includes a variety of infrastructure improvements, such as water and sewer
connections, Also, motorists and pedestrians in the vicinity of intersections at which roadway improvements
would occur would have views of construction associated with those improvements, However, these visual
conditions would be temporalY visual distractions typically associated with construction activities and commonly
encountered in developed areas, and would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is
required, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.1-29)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would not alter the amount or location of construction
equipment or materials stored at the Project Site, or the need for temporary structures or exposed trenches, While
different construction equipment may be used for relocation of the Saddling Barn (as compared to construction of
a new Saddling Barn), this would not present a substantial increase in the visual distraction associated with
construction activities, As with the rest of the proposed Project, these visual conditions would be temporary visual
distractions typically associated with construction activities and commonly encountered in development areas,
There would be no new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts
~ssociated with the visual impacts of construction activities on the AEA Modifications, compared to the project
conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR. Consequently, visual impacts of construction activities for the
proposed Project with the AEA Modifications would be the same as described in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR
AEA at p, 9,)
Develooment of the Proiect:
(a) Commercial/Office Development and Signage
Implementation of the proposed project would substantially alter the visual character or quality of the
Specific Plan Area, However, compliance with the identified project requirements would ensure that this impact
would remain less than significant. Sensitive planning, architectural design and operation of the development will
achieve compatibility between the existing Racetrack and Grandstand facility and The Shops at Santa Anita,
Planning concepts ensuring compatibility include the preservation of historic buildings on the site, maintaining all
existing points of entry to and exit from the property, and orienting the Project to preserve the Grandstand's role
as the site's dominant architectural feature, The new development will connect to the historic district of
Grandstand and Paddock Gardens, while allowing the traditional operations of the track to continue, including the
pre-race pageantry of horses and jockeys moving from stables to track, and racing spectators circulating from the
Grandstand to the walking ring, (Id,)
The proposed architecture will evoke the commercial architecture of small town American Main Streets
that have developed over the approximate historic time period during which the track and Grandstand evolved,
thereby creating a compatible thematic character, The early- and mid-Twentieth Century Main Street districts
typically include a variety of revival and contemporary styles, both functional and decorative, Historical
development patterns typically create a consistent street scale controlled by the edge of the Street, the practical
height and clear span limitations of masonry and framed structures, and by the traditional development of
7
commercial structures into widths of20 to 50 feet. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-28,) Specific inspiration for historical
architectural styles and details may derive from Arcadia itself, or from surrounding communities in the region
such as San Marino, Pasadena, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, and occasionally from unique examples outside of
Southern California, to create an authentically eclectic mix, A few newer styles may be juxtaposed with older
themes, so Main Street has the sense of continuous vitality, of evolution and change, rather than of a static, theme-
park-like tableau, (ld,) Such a blend of new and old, smaller scale architectural designs will provide a compatible
contrast to the much larger, more unified, and primarily single purpose expression of the Grandstand. Where
employed, historic styles should not simply imitate Grandstand details, (ld,)
Grandstand architecture combines the simple, functional aesthetics of its primary purpose (to shelter large
crowds from the sun and give them optimum views of the Racetrack) with elegant decorative and historically
derived accents at key locations executed by the original architect or added by others over the facility's long
history, These functional and decorative elements are unified by a muted and consistent color scheme (green and
yellow), and by the dominance of the main Grandstand roof structure and fa9ade, which maintained a consistent
architectural expression (Streamline Moderne) over the approximately 20 year time span during which it was
built. While allowing more interest and variation to reflect a variety of individual users, a compatible architecture
and planning for the new development would similarly combine simple, functional elements with more decorative
flourishes at key locations, intersections, and uses such as anchor tenants, Unifying elements would include an
overall height limitation that preserves the Grandstand's dominance on the site, and maintains a low density,
suburban feel for the new development, as does the simple clear circulation diagram provided by Main Street. A
harmonious palette of muted colors, materials, patterns, and plant selections would unify the various elements of
the proposed Project and further its compatibility with the Racetrack, Outdoor spaces and circulation paths would
spatially orient toward the Paddock Gardens and Grandstand, and provide pedestrians a dramatically widening
panorama of the Grandstand structure as they move through the development from south to north, (ld,)
The designs of the buildings would vary, as noted, and be based on a palette of historic revival styles that
would be selected for their architectural compatibility with the various styles of the Racetrack Grandstand, and for
their attractive proportions and human scale, Exposed elevations of buildings would incorporate features such as
articulated comers, building offsets, balconies, bay windows, projections, canopies, awnings, and other decorative
elements, with particular attention to the pedestrian level portions of buildings adjacent to public areas, The
finishes, colors and materials in the development would be varied but cohesive, emphasizing the use of natural
materials such as plaster, stone, brick, patinaed metal, wrought iron, tile, and wood; smaller scale details would be
emphasized where their visual and tactile qualities can be most appreciated, typically on the lower levels of
buildings and adjacent to public pedestrian ways, Rear fa9ades of buildings that are visible from public areas
would be articulated to provide appropriate architectural scale and interest. (ld,) Even though the proposed Project
would represent a substantially more intensive use of the site than the current parking area, implementation of the
substantial setbacks from Huntington Drive would provide a spatial transition and buffer for adjacent uses, (new
Draft EIR at pp, 4,1-28-29,) In addition, the height of the proposed structures would be substantially lower than
Westfield Santa Anita and the Grandstand, (ld, at p, 4,1-29,) Though the apparent height of the proposed
structures relative to the Grandstand would be greater, given the proximity of the commercial development to
Huntington Drive, the architecture of the proposed development would be designed to complement and be
compatible with the Grandstand, (ld,) See also PR 4,IB, MMRP at p, 3-18,
Landscaping is proposed throughout the Specific Plan Area to soften and buffer views of the proposed
structures, and would include potted plants, mature trees, turf surfaces, outdoor furniture, decorative lighting,
banners, and other amenities intended to add variety and contribute to a sense of human scale, Landscaping along
the southern and eastern perimeter of the Specific Plan Area would include the retention of existing, mature trees
along Huntington Drive, the provision of a new 10 foot wide landscaped buffer and sidewalk, and low scale (e,g"
shrubs) landscaping from Centennial Way to the bridge entrance at Westfield Santa Anita, turf or turf block in the
parking areas along the southern and southeastern perimeter of the site, and mature trees and shrubs along internal
roadways, and throughout the eastern parking lot. The Gate 8 entryway and access road would run to an
8
intersection and landscaped parking entrance structure and a meandering pathway that would link to the proposed
Main Street. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-33,)
The pedestrian street would extend from the southern water feature to the expanded Paddock Gardens,
and would be designed and proportioned as an authentic street, with curbs, crown, and amenities such as
decorative light poles, bench(:s, and kiosks, Each side of the street would include regularly spaced shade trees in
planting beds and wide sidewalks, The street would pass through two plazas as it moves north, The first would be
an irregularly shaped outdoor space with seasonal planting beds, a lawn area, a fountain, and direct access to the
west parking structure, This area would be surrounded by shops and restaurants, The street would then offset to
the east and continue north to a smaller, paved plaza at the intersection of the main pedestrian street with an
entrance passage from the primary valet drop-off/roundabout on the east, and also with a smaller, alternate
curving pedestrian lane leading north and west toward the cinema and Paddock Gardens, (Id.)
The proposed development would replace portions of an underutilized surface parking lot with
commercial development, open space (a park-like area, outdoor plazas, and a water feature), landscaping,
infrastructure, and associated pedestrian and vehicular circulation in ways that would enhance the aesthetic fabric
of the site and the surrounding area, (new Draft ElR p, 4,1-30,) Spatial buffering would be provided for the
adjacent residential communities through setbacks, and the incorporation of landscaping along the perimeter and
within the Specific Plan Area would provide an additional visual enhancement to the site, To ensure that
overground utility lines will not disturb the visual character or quality of the Specific Plan Area, all utility lines
shall be installed underground, PR 4,IC will be implemented to effectuate this, (PR 4,IC, MMRP at p, 3-18,) This
impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Also, the Project includes a Sign Program, The objective of the Sign Program is to provide design
standards that ensure consistent quality, scale, variety, illumination, and placement for tenant and project
identification, directional and promotional signage within the CE zone, as well as at other project sign locations
within the Specific Plan Area, Signage is an integral part of the Project's image and appeal, so signs must be
carefully designed, placed, and proportioned with respect to the setting and context in which they occur, Signs
should be visible and legible, without becoming the dominant element. Since the new Draft EIR was completed,
Measure N, an initiative measure that regulates new signs in the City under the City's Municipal Code, was
adopted, PR 4,1 D has been modified to require compliance with the Municipal Code, (Id,; PR 4,1 D, MMRP at p,
3-19,) Further, all exterior building signs would be subject to review and approval by the City's Development
Services Department for consistency with the City's Municipal Code, including the recently enacted initiative
Measure N, Consequently, these signs would be generally consistent with the surrounding suburban commercial
development, and would not represent an adverse effect on the visual character of the Project Site or its
surroundings, This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
(b) Paddock Gardens
The existing Paddock Gardens would be expanded to the south with about 1.4 acres of additional open
space areas. The Paddock Gardens expansion would continue the formal geometric landscaping theme of the
Paddock Gardens, with partelTes, diagonal walkways, planting beds, and lawn areas, Plantings would include both
new, mature specimen trees, and relocated trees, (Id,) The Kingsbury Memorial Fountain and associated mature
palm trees and landscaping would remain in their existing location, (Id, at p, 4,1-32,) The expansion of the
Paddock Gardens would replace the existing entry gates and turnstiles at the southern end of the Paddock
Gardens, but would maintain the open feeling of the outdoor gathering areas and comfortable plazas proposed
with the development. Temporary barriers would be erected on race days in place of the entry gates, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: The Additional Environmental Analysis in the Final EIR analyzes relocation of the
existing Saddling Barn from 1938 to the original 1934 location, as opposed to being demolished and replaced,
Impacts analyzed in the new Draft EIR would be lessened by the AEA Modifications because there would be no
need to replicate the design of the existing Saddling Barn, Also, and as further discussed in the cultural resources
findings below, the chevron shape of the relocated Saddling Barn would continue to allow for patrons of the
Racetrack to observe preparation of horses for racing, (Id.) Consequently, implementation of the proposed Project
9
would not result in a substantial adverse effect to the visual character of the Paddock Gardens, and this impact
would be considered less than significant. (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,1-35-36 &' Final EIR AEA at p, 10,) No
mitigation is required, (Id.)
(c) Simulcast Center
The proposed Project would also include development of the approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center,
which would be constructed inside the western wing of the Grandstand, The Simulcast Center would not affect
the southern fayade of the Grandstand, and thus, would not result in a change to the existing visual character or
quality of the Paddock Gardens or the southerly parking areas, However, the proposed Simulcast Center would be
visible from the Racetrack infield, as well as from the northern parking lot and Colorado Place, The first level
would extend under the approximately bottom fifteen rows of Grandstand seating, and would not be visible from
north of the Grandstand, The second floor would be set back from the first to accommodate Grandstand seating,
The width of the fayade's second level would extend for approximately 420 feet and extend up to the roofline of
the existing Grandstand and would be exposed, Views of the northern portion of the Grandstand would be slightly
altered with the removal of the top 15 rows of Grandstand seating for approximately 420 feet in width; however,
the second floor fayade would generally consist of glare resistant glass and framing and would be substantially set
back from the northern roofline of the Grandstand, which would soften the appearance of the new structure,
providing some differentiation while also allowing the structure to blend with the seating around it. Also, the
Simulcast Center would be similar in scale and design concept to other, similar additions to the Grandstand,
including Sirona's bar and Frontrunners restaurant, and would be visually consistent with those previous
additions, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,1-33,) Further, the Simulcast Center's design is required to be consistent with
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings and would not be constructed if the standards
could not be met. Therefore, the proposed Simulcast Center would be considered generally compatible with the
historic character of the Grandstand, (Jd,)
Consequently, although the Simulcast Center would represent a change in the appearance of the
Grandstand from views from the north, the addition would not represent an adverse change, and the overall
character of the Grandstand's north side would not be substantially altered, as the Grandstand would remain
visible and the existing sweep of the roof, as well as the overall massing and volume, would remain unchanged,
While the walls of the Simulcast Center may be distinguishable, it will be less prominent than the Frontrunner's
Restaurant since the proposed element is set back behind the main cross aisle, Consequently, the impact of the
proposed Project on the visual character or quality of the Grandstand would be less than significant. No mitigation
is required, (/d.)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative development within the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area would
not result in a cumulatively significant impact in terms of a substantial degradation of the visual character or
quality of the City, (Jd, at p, 4,1-37-38,) Because the City is a suburban, developed area, it is anticipated that any
future projects would generally be consistent with the community design pattern established in the General Plan
and embodied in the Specific Plan, (Jd, at p, 4,1-38,) In addition, future development would continue to be guided
by the General Plan and Municipal Code and would be subject to design review, which would consider the types
and placement of planned development throughout the City, Consequently, changes in land use that would
substantially degrade the area would generally not be permitted to occur under the General Plan or CEQA review,
thereby protecting the visual character of these areas, (Id,) The Municipal Code ensures that development occurs
consistent with its surroundings, in terms of design, massing, and building heights, Additional development
within the surrounding areas would constitute further intensification of an already suburban and nearly built-out
area and would generally occur through infill development; therefore, it would not be expected to result in
substantial degradation of the visual quality of the area, Consequently, cumulative impacts would be anticipated
to be less than significant. Moreover, the contribution of the proposed Project to such cumulative impacts would
not be cumulatively considerable, because implementation of the proposed development would be compatible
with the surrounding uses, as well as the architectural styles of the Grandstand, Signage would be limited, subject
to review by the City and would be required to be consistent with the Municipal Code, Therefore, the proposed
10
Project's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
(Id,)
B. Air Quality
Impact: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan either
individually or on a cumulative level? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,2-22, 41, Impact 4,2-1)
Finding: The Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, (Id,;
Final EIR AEA at p, 11.)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would provide new sources of regional air emissions but would
not contlict with or obstruct implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan, This is considered a less than
significant impact. (ld,)
The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the
high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), and to return clean air to the region, Projects that are considered to be consistent with the
AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate
the AQMP, Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the
development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even
if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds, (ld,)
Projects that are consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified in the
Growth Management Chapter of SCAG's 1996 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) are considered
consistent with the AQMP growth projections, While SCAG is currently in the process of updating its 1996
RCPG, the new draft update is not anticipated to be ready prior to circulation of the EIR, Thus, the new Draft EIR
relied on the 1996 RCPG, This is because the Growth Management Chapter of the 1996 RCPG forms the basis of
the land use and transportation control portions of the 2003 AQMP, As the proposed Project does not include
residences and the General Plan did not account for residences on the Project Site, the proposed Project would not
contlict with either SCAG or General Plan population projections, Because SCAG's regional growth forecasts are
based upon, among other things, land uses specified in city general plans, the proposed Project would, by
extension, be consistent with the SCAG's regional population forecast projections, In turn, the proposed Project
would also be consistent with the 2003 AQMP growth projections, (Id,)
SCAG's regional forecasts indicate an increase in employment in the City from approximately 24,478
jobs in 2005 to 27,674 jobs in 2010 (SCAG 2004), (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-23,) By generating approximately
1,300 long-term employment positions, the proposed Project would contribute a portion of this growth in
employment, and the jobs would be filled by Arcadia residents or residents of nearby communities, Employees in
the proposed office space would consist of 100 existing employees of the Arcadia Unified School District
(AUSD) who would relocate from existing office space in the City to the new office space provided by this
project. There would be no net new employees, Further, the General Plan provides for up to 1.1 million sf of
commercial uses on the Project Site, Therefore, the employment that would be generated by up to 1,1 million sf of
commercial uses on site has been accounted for in previous growth projections, and the proposed Project would
not result in any increase in employment not accounted for in the General Plan, The employment growth resulting
from the proposed Project would, therefore, also be consistent with SCAG's employment forecasts for the City,
Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2003 AQMP employment assumptions, (ld,)
Based on the proposed Project's consistency with the land use and development intensity designated in
the City's existing General Plan, and the subsequent consistency with the existing SCAG population projections
and the AQMP forecasts, as discussed above, the proposed Project would not impair implementation of the
AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id.)
AEA Modifications: The same analysis discussed above applies to the Project with the AEA
Modifications, Construction and implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct the
II
implementation of the Air Quality Management Plan based on the proposed Project's consistency with the land
use and development intensity designated in the City's existing General Plan (which would not change with the
AEA Modifications), and the subsequent consistency with the existing SCAG population projections and the
AQMP forecasts, (Final EIR AEA at p, 11.)
Cumulative Imoacts: Cumulative development could result in a significant impact in terms of conflicting
with, or obstructing implementation of the 2003 AQMP, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-41.) Growth that is considered
to be inconsistent with the AQMP could interfere with attainment of federal or state ambient air quality standards
because this growth, and programs and standards developed to address the Basin-wide effects of this growth, are
not included in the projections used in the formulation of the AQMP, Consequently, as long as growth in the
Basin is within the projections for growth identified in the Growth Management Chapter of the 1996 RCPG,
implementation of the AQMP would not be obstructed by such growth, Growth under the proposed Project is
consistent with the growth assumptions of the 1996 RCPG, (Id, at p, 4,2-51.) As the proposed Project would be
consistent with these assumptions, it would also be consistent with the AQMP, and the contribution of the
proposed Project to a possible cumulative impact due to conflict with the AQMP would not be cumulatively
considerable, Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
(new Draft EIR at pp, 4,2-22, 41.)
Impact: Would the Project individually or cumulatively expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-43, 52,36, 4.2-44, Impacts 4,2-5 and 4,2-7.)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations due to project-generated toxic air emissions and is considered a less-than-significant impact. In
addition, operation of the proposed Project would generate increased local traffic volumes, but would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial localized CO concentrations and is also considered a less-than-significant
impact. (Draft EIR, at 4,2-37,)
Explanation:
Toxic Air Emissions: Two Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) were performed to estimate the potential
health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) generated by construction and operation of the
proposed Project, and are included as Appendix B2 and Appendix B3 of the Draft EIR, respectively, In the HRA
for construction activities, included in its entirety as Appendix B2 of the Draft EIR, the maximum predicted
(annual average) concentration of Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) was divided by the applicable REL value to
obtain the Hazard Index (HI), If the HI is less than one, then the HRA is complete, If the HI is greater than one,
then additional analysis and mitigation may be necessary, At the point of maximum impact (PMI), the results
indicate the chronic non-cancer HI for DPM associated with the construction activities for the proposed Project is
0.39, which is less than one, The PMI is located on the Santa Anita Park property line, just west of the Methodist
Hospital annex building, and is shown in Figure 4,6-2 (Schools in the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area) of the
new Draft EIR, Because the DPM HI is less than one at the PMI, the HI is also, by definition, less than one at all
other locations, including sensitive receptors; hence, no further analysis is required, No significant adverse health
impacts are expected from DPM emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed Project, and
this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Draft EIR at pA,2-35,)
Although a cancer risk factor has been established for DPM, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) HRA cancer risk factors assume a continuous exposure over a 70-year time frame,
Therefore, it is not meaningful to evaluate long-term cancer impacts from construction activities that last only 18
months, which is far less than the 70-year exposure timeframe that is analyzed for operation of the proposed
Project in the following discussion, (Id, at pA,2-36)
As stated in the operational HRA for the proposed Project, included in its entirety in Appendix B3, in
order to evaluate the potential cancer risks posed by DPM resulting from the operation of the proposed Project, a
comparative analysis was performed against a similar, but much larger project in North Rialto, California, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,2-36,) The primary cancer-causing T AC emission sources at both the Rialto facility and the
12
proposed Project are diesel transport trucks, The Rialto facility is an industrial facility where a large number of
trucks would enter and exit daily, the trucks would idle for long periods of time and some would need to be cold
started daily, As fewer delivery trucks will travel to and from the proposed Project during operation, idling time
will be limited and almost no cold starts are expected, As the Rialto facility would result in higher concentrations
of DPM, it is compared to the proposed Project to conservatively analyze the potential cancer risk during
operation of the proposed Project. (Id,)
The Rialto facility evaluated and quantified the potential cancer risks resulting from the daily arrivals and
departures of semi-trailer delivery trucks, and associated maintenance activities, Although the Rialto facility is not
intended for public use, unlike the proposed Project, it would include activities associated with truck deliveries of
products, as would the proposed Project. Results for the Rialto facility showed potential cancer risks below the
SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in I million, The operational HRA estimated emissions from each activity,
as well as the total daily emissions for the Rialto facility, showed the total reduction of emissions estimated for
the proposed Project as compared to the Rialto facility and the estimated potential cancer risk for each facility. By
scaling the predicted cancer risk from the Rialto facility with the emissions of the proposed Project, the cancer
risk estimated for the proposed Project is 1,26 in I million, well below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10
in I million, Thus, the carcinogenic health effects associated with the DPM emissions from the delivery trucks at
the proposed Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id.)
As discussed. in order to evaluate the potential cancer risks posed by DPM resulting from the operation of
the proposed Project, a comparative analysis was performed against a similar, but much larger project in North
Rialto, California, (Draft EIR at p, 4,2-53,) The significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically
determined according to the project specific impact methodology recommended by the SCAQMD, Results for the
Rialto facility showed potential cancer risks below the SCAQMD significance threshold of lOin I million, and by
scaling the predicted cancer risk from the Rialto facility with the emissions of the proposed Project, the cancer
risk estimated for the proposed Project is 1,26 in one million, which is also well below the SCAQMD significance
threshold of lOin I million, As the significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined
according to the project spccific impact methodology and thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD, the
cumulative carcinogenic health effects associated with the DPM emissions from the delivery trucks at the
proposed Project would be less than significant. Even if the cumulative impact were significant, the Project would
not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. Consequently, this cumulative impact would be
less than significant. (ld,)
Localized CO Concentrations: Operation of the proposed Project would generate increased local traffic
volumes, but would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial localized CO concentrations, This is considered a
less-than-significant impact. (Draft EIR at p, 37,)
The CALlNE4 model was used to predict future CO concentrations at 23 study area intersections that are
expected to operate with the p~oposed Project under weekday and Saturday peak hours at LOS E or F in 2009,
when the proposed Project is expected to be completed and in operation, shown in Table 4,13-10 and Table 4,13-
11 in Section 4,13 of the Draft EIR, As all other intersections are expected to operate at a better LOS, those
intersections would produce lower CO concentrations, This CO analysis is based on the projected future traffic
volumes from the study intersections contained in the Project traffic study, included in its entirety as Appendix I
of the Draft EIR, and takes into account emissions from the proposed Project, future ambient growth, and related
projects in the Project area, The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4,2-8a and Table 4,2-8b of the
Draft EIR, (Id.. at pp, 37-38,) ,
As shown, future I-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations near these intersections would not exceed federal
or state ambient air quality standards, Decreases in CO concentrations from existing conditions may be
attributable to reduced vehicle emissions factors for CO resulting from anticipated improvements in emissions
technologies projected for the future by the ARB, The intersection of Rosemead A venue and Huntington Drive
and the intersection of Santa Anita A venue and Huntington Drive both represent the highest I-hour CO
concentrations at 6,7 ppm and the 8 hour CO concentration at 5,0 ppm for weekday, while on Saturdays the
13
Baldwin and Gate 8 intersection represents the highest I-hour CO concentration at 7,3 ppm and the 8 hour CO
concentration at 5.4 ppm, As all other intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better, CO concentrations
at these intersections would be less than those shown in Tables 4,2-8a and 4,2-8b in the Draft EIR, Therefore, CO
hotspots would not occur near these intersections in the future, and the contribution of project traffic-related CO
at these intersections would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id, at pp,38-39,)
The significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project
specific impact methodology recommended by the SCAQMD, and the HRA results for the proposed Project
indicate the worst-case, chronic, non-cancer HI for DPM associated with the construction activities for the
proposed Project is 0,39, which is less than one, the threshold value at or above which additional analysis and
mitigation are deemed necessary by the SCAQMD, If the HI is less than one, then the HRA is complete, Because
the DPM Hazard Index is less than one at the PMI, the HI is less than one at all sensitive receptors, As the
significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project specific impact
methodology and thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD, there are no significant cumulative adverse health
impacts expected from DPM emissions from construction activities associated with the proposed Project. Even if
the cumulative impact were significant, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to
this impact. Consequently, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. (Id. at p, 4,2-41.)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no significant cumulative impact would occur.
The Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less
than significant.
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively create objectionable odors affecting a substantial
number of people? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-40, 44, Impact 4,2-8)
Finding: The project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, (Id.; Final
EIR AEA at p, 14,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-40,) Compliance with the identified project requirement
would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (Id,) Objectionable odors are a localized
phenomenon and are confined to the vicinity of the emitter of the odor, Construction activities do not usually emit
offensive odors, Although construction activities occurring in association with the proposed Project could
generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i,e" diesel exhaust) and the
application of interior and exterior architectural coatings, these emissions would only occur during daytime hours,
would generally be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would not affect a
substantial number of people, (Id,) Offensive odors are usually associated with land uses that include agriculture,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and
fiberglass molding, Potential operational airborne odors could result from cooking activities associated with new
restaurants, However, these odors would be similar to existing residential and restaurant uses in the vicinity and
would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the new buildings, The other potential source of odors would be
new trash receptacles within the retail and office development. The water feature is not anticipated to create odors
because it would be continuously re-circulated and filtered to maintain high water quality, and no chlorine or
odor-causing water treatment products would be used, (Id,) PR 4,2B would ensure that trash associated with the
proposed Project would be collected with sufficient regularity to prevent substantial objectionable odors, thereby
ensuring that this impact would remain less than significant. (PR 4,2B, MMRP at 3-33,) No mitigation is required,
(ld.)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would not change the activities or uses associated with
those Project elements from those evaluated in the new Draft EIR, If anything, the reduction in size of the
cinema/theater building and the retail building could generate less trash, There would be no new significant
environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact associated with creation
of objectionable odors as a result of the AEA Modifications having been incorporated into the proposed Project.
14
Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p,
14,)
Cumulative Imoacl: Odors resulting from the construction of these projects are not likely to affect a
substantial number of people, due to the fact that construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,2-44-45,) Although construction activities occurring in association with the proposed Project
could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (e,g" diesel exhaust) and the
application of interior and exterior architectural coatings, these emissions would only occur during daytime hours,
would generally be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would not affect a
substantial number of people, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,2-45,) The odor impacts resulting from commercial projects
are not expected to affect a substantial amount of people, as activities typically associated with these uses do not
emit offensive odors and solid waste from these projects would be stored in special areas and in containers, as
required with incorporation of PR 4,2B into the proposed Project. In addition, restaurants are required to have
ventilation systems that prevent substantial adverse odor impacts, The water feature is not anticipated to create
odors because it would be continuously re-circulated and filtered to maintain high water quality, and no chlorine
or odor-causing water treatment products would be used, During visits to the Project Site conducted throughout
June, July, August, September, and October 2005, as well as April 2006, no noticeable odors from the stables
were detected in the south parking lot, where the majority of structural development would occur. As a result,
substantial objectionable odors from the stables and the remainder of the development site would not be expected
at the proposed Project, and would not contribute to a cumulative impact on objectionable odors, (Jd,)
Impact: Would the proposcd Project individually or cumulatively have a substantial adverse impact on global
wanning?
Finding: An estimation of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed Project is provided in the
Final EIR. The contribution of the proposed Project to potential greenhouse gas impacts is not considered to be
significant or cumulatively considerable, The effect of this one project in the City of Arcadia would not be
measurable on a global scale and would be less than significant individually or cumulatively, (FEIR at p, 4-488)
Explanation: The emissions identified and evaluated in the new Draft EIR are local and regional in nature,
Localized pollutant levels would have the greatest potential to impact residents of Arcadia, The effect of regiotial
emissions would be limited to ambient air quality levels within the South Coast Air Basin, Greenhouse gas
emissions, on the other hand, are global. The effect of this one project in the City of Arcadia would not be
measurable on a global scale, The amount of C02 emissions in Response to Comment 9-110 of the Final EIR
represents approximately 0,01999 percent of the annual C02 emissions that were generated by California uses in
2004, (Final EIR at p, 4-486,)
The Final EIR reports that, at the present time, it is the SCAQMD's opinion that while an EIR can discuss
possible global warming impacts, the impacts associated with general development projects should not be
considered significant. Neither the ARB nor the SCAQMD have recommended oradopted thresholds of
significance for greenhouse gas pollutants, The greenhouse gas emission limits required by AB 32 will not be
established until January 2008 at the earliest. Until then, and based on independent review and investigation, there
is no reasonable established standard to determine for this proposed Project how much reduction is necessary and,
therefore, what possible thresholds of significance are appropriate for global-related impacts, Dr, Steve Smith,
CEQA Program Supervisor for the SCAQMD, anticipates that measures recommended to address any such
impacts will likely focus on cnergy demand reduction, PR 4,I4E as well as the two additional mitigation measures
recommended in Response to Comment 9-16 of the Final EIR reduce the energy demand of the proposed Project.
The proposed Project would also be a LEED-equivalent project. Therefore, the new Draft EIR has provided
reductions for the proposed Project's potential contribution to global warming, (Id, at pp, 4-486, 4-489,)
Until the ARB establishes the greenhouse gas emission limits required by AB 32 and develops programs
that can and should be implemented at the local level the issue of global warming impacts is currently a State and
Federal responsibility and is beyond the scope of the new EIR for a general development project. The amount of
greenhouse emissions that would be generated in California in 2020 is being predicted, but is not available at the
15
time that this Final EIR was prepared, An estimation of the greenhouse gas emISSIons associated with the
proposed Project is provided in Final EIR, (Id, at p, 4-486,)
In addition to the information provided in the Final EIR, there is now updated information about the
sources of greenhouse gas emissions associated with California, The California Energy Commission published the
Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 in December 2006, This report
indicates that California is the second largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the United States next to Texas. This
is largely a result of the number of people living in a large state, as opposed to a small state such as Rhode Island,
California generates C02 emissions at a rate about half as much as Texas, When considering fossil fuel emissions
at the individual person level, California is second lowest in the nation in per capita C02 emissions with only the
District of Columbia lower. Between 1990 and 2000, California's population grew by 4,1 million people and
during the 1990 to 2003 period, California's gross state product grew by 83 percent (in dollars, not adjusted for
inflation), However, California's greenhouse gas emissions grew by only 12 percent between 1990 and 2003, The
report concludes that California's ability to slow the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions is largely due to
the success of its energy efficiency, renewable energy programs, and commitment to clean air and clean energy,
In fact, the State's programs and commitments lowered its greenhouse gas emissions rate of growth by more than
half of what it would have been otherwise, The proposed Project would be subject to all applicable programs for
energy conservation as well as the mitigation measures for energy conservation set forth in the MMRP, (Id, at p,
4-487,)
A rough estimate of the potential greenhouse' gas emissions associated with the proposed Project is
provided in the Final EIR Response to Comment 9-110, As specified in Section 15130(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines, an EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is
cumulatively considerable as defined in Section 15065(a)(3), According to Section 15065(a)(3), "cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects, As discussed in Response to Comment 9-104 of the Final EIR, greenhouse gas emissions are global. The
effect of one general development project in the City would not be measurable on a global scale, As discussed in
Response to Comment 9-104, it is the SCAQMD's opinion that possible global warming impacts associated with
general development projects should not be considered significant. And as discussed in Response to Comment 9-
108 of the Final EIR, California is second lowest in the nation in per capita C02 emissions, For these reasons, the
contribution of the proposed Project to potential greenhouse gas impacts is not considered to be significant or
cumulatively considerable, The proposed Project would be subject to the additional mitigation measures in the
MMRP which would minimize energy demand and associated pollutants, (Id, at pp, 4-487-488,)
The construction equipment that would operate at the Project Site is expected to be equipment that is
already operating at construction sites elsewhere within the South Coast Air Basin, Therefore, the emissions from
this equipment are currently part of the existing emissions budget for the Basin (id, at p, 4-488,) and its use would
not increase global emissions of greenhouse gases, At the present time, emission factors are not available to
accurately predict C02 emission for vehicles and some sources specific to California, Therefore, the potential
C02 emissions associated with the proposed Project have been roughly estimated using the sources referenced in
the comment. (Id,)
The new Draft EIR estimates that the proposed Project would demand approximately 68,978 kWh of
electricity and 2,688,960 cubic feet of natural gas per day, Using the U,S, Department of Energy's
Revised/Updated State-Level GHC Emissions Factors for Electricity Generation (April 2002) emission factor of
0,61 pounds of C02 per kWh, the electricity generated to support the Project would generate approximately
42,077 pounds of C02 per day, The Energy Information Administration's Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the
US (2000) identifies an emission factor of 5,91 kg of C02 per cubic meter of natural gas used, A cubic foot equals
0,02832 cubic meter. Using this conversion, the proposed Project would use 76,151 cubic meters of natural gas
per day, The proposed Project would generate 146,972 kg of C02 per day, which equates to 324,073 pounds of
C02 per day using the conversion rate of2,205 pounds per kilogram, (Id,)
16
.
The URBEMIS 2002 model results provided in Appendix B-1 of the new Draft EIR estimate that the
vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site would travel 208,935.44 miles on a Saturday, which is more than
on weekdays, In the absence of California or U,S, emission factors, the emission factors that were provided by the
commenter are based on vehicles in England, These emission factors are 0.44 kg of C02 per mile traveled for
large passenger cars with engines greater than 2,1 liters in size, Diesel emission factors are actually lower at 0,30
kg of C02 per mile, Using a very conservative assumption that all vehicles would generate the higher emissions
of passenger cars, the vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site would generate 91,932 kg or 202,709 pounds
of C02 per day, This is less than the emissions that would be generated by consumption of natural gas and
electricity by the Project. (Id,)
Table 6 in the Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 indicates that
California greenhouse emissions were approximately 471.1 million metric tons in 2004 when including the
emissions associated with electricity imports (electricity generated outside of California, but used here), The
proposed Project would generate approximately 0,942 million metric tons per year of C02, This equates to 0,0199
percent of the emissions generated by California in 2004, On a global scale, the percentage is substantially
smaller, (/d, at p, 4-489,)
Section 1 5126.4(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states that mitigation measures are not required for effects
which are not found to be significant. As discussed in Responses to Comment 9-104 and 9-109 of the Final EIR,
the contribution of the proposed Project to potential greenhouse gas impacts is not considered to be significant or
cumulatively considerable, Therefore no mitigation measures are required to reduce this potential impact. (Id,)
However, it should be noted that the following mitigation measures are provided for the proposed Project or were
deemed inapplicable or infeasible, as discussed below:
Minimizing and recycling construction-related waste: The Project construction team would use waste
management practices and contractors that will minimize and recycle demolition and construction-related waste
(as is practical and typical for construction projects located in the City of Los Angeles), PR 4,14B requires the
Developer to recycle 50 percent of the construction debris, (/d.)
Using salvaged and recycled-content materials for building: The Project construction team would make
every reasonable effort to maximize the use of salvaged and recycled building materials, but this is not required in
this Final EIR, (/d.)
Following the U,S, Green Building Council's LEED (leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or
comparable standards for energy- and resource-efficient building during pre-design, design, construction,
operations and management: The Project would be LEED equivalent.
Using passive heating, natural cooling, solar hot water systems, and reduced pavement: The Project does
not include a residential component, or other large user of hot water, With the exception of restaurants, retail
tenant hot water needs are typically supplied using under-sink tankless water heating systems, These tank less
water heating systems are more effective at reducing emissions than most low emission water heaters, Therefore,
there would be no benefit to installation of solar or low-emission water heating for the Project. The majority of
roofing materials selected for use on the Project would consist of light-colored materials, Construction of the
Project will significantly reduce the amount of paved area as compared with the existing paved surface parking lot
condition of the Project Site, (Id, at p, 4-489.)
Landscaping to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity: The Project Site has been a
surface parking lot since its original construction; therefore, there is no natural vegetation at the site, (Id.)
Installing electric vehicle charging stations and preferred parking for customers driving ultra-low
emission vehicles, in the same way that many jurisdictions provide free parking for such vehicles: There are
presently no mass-produced electric vehicles available for purchase in California and, with the increasing
popularity of self-charging "hybrid" type low emission vehicles, the demand for electric vehicle charging stations
at commercial facilities is extremely low or non-existent. Therefore, there is currently no need to provide electric
vehicle charging stations at the Project Site, That is not to say that such stations could not be provided in the
17
future if electric vehicles are once again operating in sufficient numbers to warrant this service at the Project Site,
Until then, the Project will designate some parking spaces for smaller, ultra-low emissions vehicles, (Id, at p,
490,)
Utilizing the combination of construction materials with the lowest carbon footprint: The Project
construction team would make every reasonable effort to maximize the use of natural building materials but use
of specific materials is not required in this Final EIR, (Id,)
Utilizing only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices and appliances: Heating, cooling,
lighting, and appliances needed to meet the requirements of California Title 24 energy efficiency compliance
would be procured for the Project. (Id.)
Encouraging the use of public transportation to the site by constructing bus stops or other facilities and
funding the transportation agency if necessary: As discussed in on page 3-64 of the new Draft EIR, the Project
would support existing and future bus service by incorporating additional bus stops internal to the site and/or on
adjacent streets, The stops and associated facilities and amenities would be designed and implemented in
cooperation with MTA and Foothill Transit. In addition, the proposed Project would provide a shuttle service to
the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station,on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, If or when the Metro Gold
Line route is extended, the shuttle would provide service to the station nearest the Specific Plan Area, Therefore,
the Project would encourage the use of public transportation to the site, (Id,)
Requiring the use or only clean fueled vehicles for construction and shipment of goods for the stores:
Mitigation measure MM 4,2-2(c) requires the use of alternative fuel construction equipment to the extent feasible,
Mitigation measure MM 4,2-2(b) requires the use of 10w-NOx diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available
and cost effective, Mitigation measure MM 4,2-2(01) requires all diesel-powered equipment to be retrofitted with
after-treatment products to the extent feasible, However, it is not feasible for the Project team to restrict the
bidding and award of construction contracts to firms using only clean fueled vehicles since few contractors
currently operate these vehicles, Likewise, it is not feasible to enforce the use of clean fueled delivery vehicles
upon retail tenants, (Id.)
Increase employee carpooling and use of public transportation by having Project tenants provide
economic incentives and preferred parking for such uses: As discussed on page 4,13-105 of the new Draft EIR,
the requirement that not less than 10 percent of employee parking areas be located as close as practical to the
employee entrance(s) and be reserved for use by potential carpoollvanpool vehicles is a City of Arcadia TOM
Code Requirement of PR 4,l3C, PR 4,I3C also provides a number of measures and incentives to reduce
employee vehicle trips, (Id,)
After all avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated, purchasing offset credits for the
Project's lifetime greenhouse gas emissions: The Project would focus on more practical methods of reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, such as those listed above, but would not pursue purchasing offset credits, The
purchase of offset credits over the operational lifetime of the project would be a substantial financial burden on
the Project and would do little to reduce global greenhouse gases, (Id, at p, 4-491,)
C. Biological Resources:
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as' a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") or U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service
("USFWS")? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-15,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the C,?FG or USFWS, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-16; Final EIR AEA at p, 15,)
Explanation:
18
Vegetation Communities: No vegetation communities (or habitats) that are either sensitive or common
are located within the Specific Plan Area, (new Draft EIR, p, 4,3-4,) Vegetation communities can be loosely
defined as "clusters of species repeatedly associated together," In contrast, the Project Site is characterized by
individually planted non-native ornamental trees used for the purpose of decorative landscaping, These trees are
set within the context of a developed area that includes infrastructure features, such as roads, buildings, parking
lots, and walkways, The vegetation contained within the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash that was observed
during the surveys of the Specific Plan Area was dominated by umbrella sedge and rabbitfoot grass and did not
exceed two to three feet in height. (Jd,) The northern portion of the Specific Plan Area, which would not be
developed under the proposed Project and is located northwest of the Racetrack and west of the northern parking
lot, is dominated by a mix of several individual species of oak trees, (Jd, at p, 4,3-4-5,) However, the existing
spacing of vegetation in this area, as well as the lack of supporting species inherent to most oak woodlands typical
of the region, precludes this area from being defined as an oak woodland, (Jd, at p, 5,)
Wildlife: Because the Specific Plan Area is currently developed, and is also surrounded by development,
it does not support sensitive (including threatened and endangered) plant or wildlife species, Only common
species that are typically present in developed areas were observed or are anticipated to occur. Although the
majority of the Specific Plan Area is developed or landscaped, surveys included active searches for mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians that involved lifting, overturning, and carefully replacing rocks and debris and observing
reptile or mammal activity 011 paved areas or within planter areas, Birds were identified by standard visual and
auditory recognition, and the presence of nests or other evidence of breeding activity was noted, Surveys for
mammals included searching for and identifying diagnostic signs, including scat, footprints, scratch-outs, dusting
bowls, burrows, and trails, (Id,) See Table 4,3-1 and Table 4,3-2 of the new Draft EIR for a list of the plant and
wildlife species that were observed within the Specific Plan area, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,3-4-6,)
SDecial Status Biological Resources: Because the Specific Plan Area is developed with a horse racing
facility, which includes surface parking lots, stables, the Paddock Gardens, a Racetrack, and other ancillary
structures, and has been used for these purposes since approximately 1934, the potential for the occurrence of
special-status plants, habitats, or wildlife within the Specific Plan Area is considered extremely remote, as
substantiated by Appendix C2 of the new Draft EIR, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.3-9,) No special-status species were
observed on site, as reflected by Tables 4,3-1 and 4.3-2 of the new Draft EIR, and no special-status species have a
moderate to high potential to occur on site, as reflected by Appendix C2, '(Jd,) As substantiated by Appendix C2
of the new Draft EIR, no endangered, rare, threatened, or special status plant species (or associated habitats) or
wildlife species designated by the USFWS, CDFG, or CNPS are known to occur or were found within the
Specific Plan Area, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,3-12,) Therefore, there are no impacts to such designated special-
status species associated with implementation of the proposed Project, either directly or indirectly (new Draft EIR
at p, 4.3-14,)
AEA Modifications: The Arcadia Wash would still be covered for 1,200 feet through the Project Site
under the AEA Modifications, but the cinema/theater building and the retail building would not be placed on the
covered Wash, The AEA Modifications would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental
impacts with respect to covering of the Wash from a biological resources perspective compared to project
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in
the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 15.)
Cumulative ImDacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Plan? (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,3-15,)
19
Finding: The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation Plan, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,3-16; Final EIR AEA at p, 15,)
Explanation: As analyzed on page 4.3-15 of the new Draft E]R, there are no such plans that apply to the Specific
Plan area or adjacent to such area, consequently there is no impact.
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFG or USFWS? (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,3-]4, Impact 4,3-3)
Finding: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the CDFG or
USFWS, (fd,; Final EIR AEA at p, ] 5,)
Explanation: No sensitive vegetation associations (i,e" habitats) have been identified within the portion of the
Specific Plan Area in which development would occur under the proposed Project, including those associated
with riparian species, such as southern coast live oak riparian forest or southern cottonwood-willow riparian
forest, or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations
established by the CDFG or USFWS, (new Draft E]R at p, 4,3-] 8,) Therefore, no impact would occur as a result
of the proposed Project (fd, at p, 4,3-12,) Implementation of the proposed project would result in the covering of
the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash, a drainage channel with intermittent flows that occasionally supports
limited stands of riparian vegetation, Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this
impact would remain less than significant.
However, it should be noted that the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash, which flows onto and through the
Specific Plan Area, is subject to intermittent flows that include runoff from areas north and west of the Specific
Plan Area, (ld, at p, 4,3-18,) Any vegetation that may become established in this concrete channel is regularly
removed during the County's maintenance activities, The vegetation in the channel that was observed during the
surveys of the Specific Plan Area was dominated by umbrella sedge and rabbitfoot grass and did not exceed two
to three feet in height. In addition, this vegetation was present in approximately 25-feet-Iong pockets where cracks
in the channel and/or sediment accumulation along the channel allow for the establishment of root structures, Any
vegetation that is present within the channel in between the County's regularly scheduled maintenance activities
does not provide suitable habitat for any aquatic, avian, or mammal wildlife species, Further, according to CDfG
stafT, based on the limited value of the vegetation present, a Streambed Alteration Agreement, pursuant to
Section 1600 et seq, of the Fish and Game Code, would not likely be required (Wehtje 2005), However, any
activity involving the channel, including the proposed cover, should be reviewed by CDFG for compliance with
the Fish and Game Code as required by PR 4.3A, (ld,) (See PR 4.3A, MMRP at p, 3-35,)
While the channel is not considered to be riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community, the limited
stands of riparian vegetation that become temporarily established within the channel could nonetheless be
regulated by CDFG, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-18-]9,) Therefore, with implementation ofPR 4,3A, no substantial
adverse impacts to any limitcd riparian vegetation that could become established in the channel between the
County's periods of maintenance activities would occur in association with implementation of the proposed
Project, and a less-than-significant impact would result and no mitigation is required. (fd, at p, 4.3-19,)
AEA Modifications: Under the AEA Modifications, the Arcadia Wash would still be covered for
1,200 feet through the Project Site, but the cinema/theater building and the retail building would not be placed on
the covered Wash, As a result, the AEA Modifications would not result in any new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts with respect to covering of the Wash from a biological resources perspective, compared to
the conditions analyzed in the new Draft ElR. Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed
in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, ]5,)
20
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-13,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc,)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, (Id.; Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Explanation: No wetlands are present within the portion of the Specific Plan Area in which development of the
proposed Project would occur. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-13,) The majority of this area is developed, with the
exception of isolated ornamental vegetation and the Paddock Gardens, Some vegetation typical of wetlands has
become established within the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash due to cracks in the concrete channel and
sediment accumulation, However, the channel is maintained by the County Department of Public Works, and all
vegetation is removed at regular intervals, Further, the channel, which as stated previously is entirely concrete,
exhibits only two of the three parameters (hydrology, vegetation, and soils) used to typically classify a wetland,
(Id,)
The Project proposes to cover the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash from a point west of the Paddock
Gardens, extending southeast to the existing covered portion adjacent to the medical office building near
Huntington Drive, (Id,) Previously, the new Draft EIR illustrated habitable structures that would be placed over
the Arcadia Wash, However, the Additional Environmental Analysis now illustrates the structures being moved
off of the Arcadia Wash, The Arcadia Wash would still be covered for 1,200 feet through the Project Site, as
evaluated in the new Draft EIR, but no habitable structures would be placed on the covered Wash, (Final EIR
AEA at p, I,) Figure 3-9A of the new Draft EIR identified several pedestrian crossings of the Wash, and these
access points would continue to be provided, but with an additional crossing located where the lobby of the
cinema/theater building was formerly proposed, as reflected in Figure 3-9A Revised, (Id, at pp, 1-2.) While
vehicles may also cross the Wash for emergency access and/or maintenance activities in the area of the former
cinema/theater lobby and throughout the Project Site, the primary use of the covered Wash would be for
pedestrian movement. (Final EIR AEA at p, 2,) The channel cover would be designed to have no impact on the
structural integrity of the channel walls, and no dredge or fill would be placed below the ordinary high water mark
or within the channel proper, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-13,) In addition, the channel cover would not have any
impact on the hydraulic capacity of the channel, as the channel was designed to accommodate a 200-year storm
event. (Id.)
Pursuant to an ernail received from USACE on August 22, 2006 (Stephanie Hall, Physical
Scientist/Project Manager, Regulatory Branch), "As long as all work is performed outside of the Ordinary High
Water Mark, and all equipment and staging will take place outside of the waters, the Project, as proposed, is not a
[USACE] regulated activity and a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit will not be required, However, should
your construction methods change and access to the channel be required for equipment, etc" a [USACE] permit
(Nationwide Permit #33) would be required," (new Draft EIR p, 4.3-13,) A copy of the USACE's correspondence
is included as Appendix C3 of the Final EIR, No structures would be placed within the channel or on the channel
banks, and the structure and integrity of the channel would not be impacted; further no dredge or fill operations
would occur. Because a Section 404 permit is not anticipated to be required, a Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) would also not be required for the proposed Project. (new
Draft EIR at p, 43-14,) However, if it is determined that a Section 404 permit is required due to a change in
construction methods, both a Section 404 permit and a Section 40 I Certification would be required, and the
Developer would need to comply with all permit/certification requirements, However, as stated above and based
on the currently proposed construction activities, there would be no impacts to waters subject to Sections 40 I and
21
404 of the Clean Water Act, including "other waters", wetlands, or other special aquatic sites (ld,) (However a
nationwide Section 404 pennit may be required for the stonn drain, (Final EIR at p, 4-59,))
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications do not change this analysis, While the modification to the
cinema/theater building and the retail building involves moving the structures immediately south of the Arcadia
Wash, the 1,200-foot portion of the Wash that currently bisects the Specific Plan Area would still be covered,
This modification would not affect water quality, and flow levels and capacity would remain the same, Also, as
indicated by Appendix C to the new Draft EIR, the U,S, Anny Corps of Engineers has detennined that "the
overbuilding of the Arcadia Wash does not discharge dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or
an adjacent wetland, Therefore, the overbuilding activity is not subject to our regulation under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and a Section 404 pennit is not required from our office," Impacts would be the same as under
the project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-14,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 14-15,)
Explanation: The majority of the Specific Plan Area, including the entire area in which development would
occur, is currently developed (paved), Similar to the remainder of the Specific Plan Area, the northern portion of
the site, which contains the only substantial concentration of vegetation, is completely surrounded by
development. There has been no documented use of the Specific Plan Area for wildlife movement, other than
birds, which is addressed in Impact 4,3-1 of the new Draft EIR, Therefore, no impact would occur with respect to
wildlife movement or the use of wildlife nursery sites, In addition, as the Specific Plan Area does not currently
support any wildlife nurseries, and, therefore, no substantial interference with native wildlife nurseries could
occur, (ld,)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-14,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-15,)
Explanation: The proposed Project would not conflict with the General Plan regulations protecting biological
resources because the proposed Project does not contain sensitive species or habitats, nor is it adjacent to or affect
areas with sensitive species or habitats (including high wildlife habitat values, riparian or other biologically
sensitive habitats, or the Arcadia Wilderness Park), (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-14-15,) Further, there are no
biological resources within the portions of the Specific Plan Area to be developed that would fall under the
protection of any local ordinances, such as the City's Oak Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 7 of the City's
Municipal Code), (new Draft EIR at p, 4,3-15,) While numerous oak trees are located north of the stables and
Racetrack itself, no development under the proposed Project would occur in this area, As such, the City's Oak
Tree Protection Ordinance would not apply, (ld,) Because the proposed Project is not adjacent to and does not
affect areas with high wildlife habitat values, riparian or other biologically sensitive habitats, or land adjacent to
the Arcadia Wilderness Park, no impact would occur (ld,)
22
AEA Modifications: Under the AEA Modifications, the Arcadia Wash would still be covered for
1,200 feet through the Project Site, but the cinema/theater building and the retail building would not be placed on
the covered Wash, As a result, the AEA Modifications would not result in any new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts with respect to covering of the Wash from a biological resources perspective, compared to
the conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed
in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 15,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
D. Cultural Resources
Impact: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-52, Impact 4.4-1)
Finding: The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature, (1.1,)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed Project is not anticipated to destroy a unique paleontological resource
or unique geologic feature, (1.1,) Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact
would remain less than significant. (1.1,)
No unique geological features are known to exist on the Project Site, and according to studies conducted
by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, the rock units underlying the
Specific Plan Area (and the City as a whole) are not considered to have the potential to yield paleontological
resources, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-53,) In the unlikely event of an unanticipated find, Performance Standard 38
of the City General Plan (incorporated into PR 4.4A) requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist or
paleontologist to assess the find and provide appropriate treatment. (1.1,) Consistent with the language of
Performance Standard 38, PR 4.4A would also apply to archaeological resources and human burials,
Additionally, constnIction personnel shall be informed of the potential for encountering significant
archaeological and paleontological resources, and instructed in the identification of fossils and other potential
resources, All construction personnel shall be infonned of the need to stop work on the Project Site until a
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find
and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find, Construction personnel shall also
be informed of the requiremer1tthat unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited,
The Developer shall also contact the appropriate Gabrielii'io and Juanei'io tribal representatives to
detennine whether either group desires Native American monitoring of grading activities, If Native American
monitors are requested, the Developer shall arrange for the monitoring with tribal representatives,
If human remains are encountered during construction, all work shall cease in the area of potential affect
and the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office shall be contacted pursuant to procedures set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5097 et seq, and Health and Safety Code Sections 7050,5, 7051, and 7054 with respect to
treatment and removal, Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary, (See PR 4.4A,
MMRP at pp, 3-35-37,)
Consequently, even though no paleontological resource is anticipated to be disturbed as a result of the
proposed Project, in the unlikely event of a find, supplemental measures required by the General Plan and
outlined in PR 4.4A would enSure appropriate treatment of any paleontological resource that might be recovered,
and a less-than-significant impact would result. (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-54,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
23
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064,5 of the CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would implementation of
the Simulcast Center result in a substantial adverse change to the historic significance of the southern fa9ade of
the Santa Anita Park Grandstand structure, its orientation toward the infield, or views of the Grandstand structure
from the infield? Also, would mplementation of the proposed Project result in a substantial adverse change to the
historical setting or views of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand? (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-54, 87, Impacts 4.4-4 and
4.4-9)
Finding: The proposed Simulcast Center in relation to the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand would not directly
or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section
15064,5 of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines, In addition, there would be no significant impact to the historical setting
or views of the Grandstand, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4.4-70, 84, 89; Final EIR AEA at pp. 15-20,)
Explanation: Implementation of the Simulcast Center would not result in a substantial adverse change to the
historic significance of the southern fa9ade of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand structure, its orientation toward
the infield, or views of the Grandstand structure from the infield, (new Draft EIR at p, 68,) This is considered a
less-than-significant impact. (Id,) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse
change to the historical setting or views of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand, This is considered a less-than-
significant impact.
The key elements of the Grandstand structure are its southern fa9ade, its orientation toward the infield,
and the views from the infield towards the Grandstand, (Id,) The Simulcast Center's proposed design meets the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as adaptive reuse in that it would maintain the historic use
of the facility, in this case as a venue for Thoroughbred horse racing (by using satellite technology to provide
access to other horse racing events around the country), (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-68-69,) Although there have
been several past additions and modifications, the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand retains enough architectural
integrity to convey the simplicity and modernity of Kaufman's original plan, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-69,) The
orientation to the infield views of the track and mountains is critical to the historic use of the Grandstand, as well
as to the Project goal to retain the historic use of horse racing at the facility, (Id,)
The proposed Project inserts the Simulcast Center totally within the Grandstand and would not, therefore,
have any impact on the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand structure, The Simulcast Center would occupy all of
the lower level and all of the first level. This first level is the main floor of the Grandstand and it extends
northward under the outdoor bleacher seating, The Simulcast Center's second level would take up the area to the
south of the middle cross aisle, including the second floor interior. (Id,)
The Simulcast Center would be oriented towards the infield, as are the other specialty areas of the
Grandstand (i,e" clubhouse, restaurants, special seating boxes, officials' boxes), While the Simulcast Center could
impact portions of the Grandstand at the north side by changing the seating orientation from exclusively towards
the infield and track, with the backdrop mountain views, to a seating arrangement that provides other points of
focus (e,g" satellite TVs), the degree to which the design of the Simulcast Center would compromise the historic
use of the Grandstand would be considered less than significant, because patrons could still enjoy that view if they
chose to, (Id,)
The addition of the Simulcast Center would be accomplished through a design process that would comply
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for an adaptive reuse to ensure that no significant loss of historic
integrity would occur with respect to the Grandstand or to the historic use of the facility as a venue for
Thoroughbred horseracing or it would not be built. (Id,)
The proposed Projec.t, including the proposed Simulcast Center, would not modify the southern fa9ade,
nor would any portion of the Simulcast Center be visible from the significant southern fa9ade, (new Draft EIR at
p, 4.4-70,) Further, the Grandstand's orientation toward the infield would remain, and the historic use of the
Grandstand would not be significantly altered, While the views south from the infield towards the Grandstand
would be changed with the development of Simulcast Center, the changed view would not affect the historical
24
integrity of the Grandstand structure, Therefore this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is
required, (Id,)
The cumulative context for impacts to the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand, including views of this
portion of the Grandstand and its orientation toward the infield are views from areas to the south (including the
southwest and southeast) where the Grandstand would be visible, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-89.) Views of the
southern fa9ade of the Grandstand from the south, along Huntington Drive across the parking lot, are familiar to
many, and some of these views will be preserved; however, the view itself is not historic, The general visibility of
the facility may have served as a marketing tool, but the historic significance of the Historic District is not
contingent on the visibility of the resources from outside the District. (Id,)
The visibility of the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand has been reduced as development has occurred in
the vicinity of Santa Anita Park and in the Paddock Gardens itself. Moreover, additions through the years to the
southern fa9ade of the Grandstand, including two recent tower additions, have obscured an estimated 50 percent
of the structure from public view, and in addition, past development of what is now the Westfield Santa Anita has
also obscured views of the Grandstand from the south and southwest. However, substantial views of the structure
remain from the south and cast, and development on and adjacent to Santa Anita Park has not resulted in a
significant cumulative impact on these views, Also, as described above, the views of historical resources are not
considered historical in and of themselves, and the reduction of such views is not considered to diminish historical
significance, Further, historic buildings throughout the region, state, and country can no longer be viewed from
distances as adjacent private property has been developed over the decades, The development of the Westfield
Santa Anita mall has not resulted in loss of historic integrity or historic significance of the resources at Santa
Anita Park, Therefore, there is a less-than-significant cumulative impact. Because views of the Grandstand are not
historic, and the Project would not impact the southern fa9ade of the Grandstand or the Grandstand's orientation
to the infield, the Project's impacts are not cumulatively considerable and would be considered less than
significant. (Id,)
Grandstand Views/Historical Setting: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse change to the historical setting or views of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand, (new Draft EIR
at p.4.4-99,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (new Draft EIR p.4.4-84,)
Setting is one of the qualities that conveys the historic significance of a structure, as described in the
criteria for the NRHP and CRHR, Construction of a building of inappropriate scale or architectural style, or
construction of a building that otherwise significantly encroaches into the setting of a structure, could represent a
substantial compromise of the setting of the structure, thereby resulting in a significant environmental impact.
(Id,)
The height for the proposed buildings in the development is limited by proposed Specific Plan zoning
regulations ranges from approximately 30 to 55 feet, substantially lower than the 85-foot Grandstand building,
None of the relationships between the various contributing resources of the Historic District will be impacted by
the proposed Project (except for the extension of the Paddock Gardens), The design concept for the new structures
envisions a variety of architectural styles that relate to the existing architecture and cultural history of the site and
will evoke the commercial architecture of surrounding communities, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-84-85,) Since the
buildings are smaller in scale compared to the Grandstand, the use of a mix of architectural styles, even those with
historic references, can be distinguished from the 1930s designs of the Grandstand and Clubhouse (as well as
from the rural appearance of the barns and stables), Taller elements, including vertical architectural features such
as spires and domes, could reach up to 67 feet (flagpoles could reach to 85 feet, the height of the Grandstand main
roof structure), but the Grandstand building would remain the site's tallest and most dominant architectural
clement. (Id,)
The historic entrance to Santa Anita Park was located at Centennial Way and Huntington Drive, The
Pacific Electric trains ran along the median of Huntington Drive and the station was located at the site of today's
City Hall, near the Centennial Drive entrance, This is the entrance that led from the train station and was
landscaped and featured in the original plot plan, A secondary entrance, originally lined with trees, runs
25
southward from the eastern edge of the original Paddock Gardens, The 1994 aerial view shows both of these
roadways; however, none of the original plantings remain, Two other north/south roads run through the south
parking lot, but both were initially designed to be secondary to the tree-lined roads, One other entrance and road
from the northeast comer of the property led to the Clubhouse entrance and a version of this road remains, Views
of the Clubhouse and Grandstand from the original entrances are not impacted by the proposed Project on the
south parking lot. (ld,)
Views of the southern fayade of the Grandstand from the south, along Huntington Drive across the
parking lot, are familiar to many, and some of these views will be preserved; however, the view itself is not
historic, In fact, the original Grandstand and Clubhouse were separate structures, about 1/3 of the Grandstand's
current size, The addition of Grandstand segments grew the facility in size, Historic buildings throughout the
region, state and country can no longer be viewed from distances as adjacent private property has been developed
over the decades, The loss of adjacent, non-historic property has not resulted in loss of historic integrity or
historic significance of resources, (ld,)
Views of the Grandstand will remain for the north perimeter and north parking areas, These views are
relatively unobstructed and look towards the Clubhouse, Grandstand, Track, and Infield, The silhouette view of
the Grandstand (looking west from Colorado Place and Huntington Drive) will not be impacted, The view from
the infield area to the track will also remain, Views of the northern fayade of the Grandstand are not historic, (ld,)
The northward view from Santa Anita Park's Grandstand and Clubhouse to the Racetrack with palm trees
framing the majestic mountains beyond, has become an iconic view, The structure was sited to take advantage of
the natural vista of the San Gabriel Mountains, The proposed Project will not have any impact on this view, (ld,)
The addition of structures to support expanded uses and reinforce the image of a high-quality entertainment
experience is in keeping with the historic intent to develop Santa Anita Park as an entertainment destination, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4.4-85-86,) In fact, the name of the facility includes the word "Park," communicating that the
facility was envisioned as a landscaped park-like setting where patrons could enjoy the agrarian genesis and
various facets of the sport of horse racing, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-86,) In sum, the street plan and the proposed
Project's pedestrian street, the landscape design, and proposed buildings would not result in an adverse impact to
the historical selling of the Santa Anita Park facility or views of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand, The impact
would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required, (ld,)
AEA Modifications: Relocation of the cinema/theater building, the retail building and an increase in
height of the West Parking Garage (resulting in a height of 51.6 feet at the top of the parapet wall) with
architectural features (e,g" elevator towers) extending up to 65,6 feet in height would still result in all structures
remaining substantially lower than the 85-foot Grandstand building, as further described in the Aesthetics
discussion, With the AEA Modifications, the cinema/theater building and retail building would be reduced in size
and moved farther south, A larger pedestrian area would be provided north of the cinema/theater building (over
the Arcadia Wash) and west of the proposed extension of the Paddock Gardens, Under both the project as
originally evaluated in the new Draft EIR and the proposed Project with the AEA Modifications, the extended
Paddock Gardens would function as a compatible open space transition from the retaillcommercial uses to the
Racetrack facilities, The West Parking Garage would be increased in height with architectural features that could
reach up to 65,6 feet. Even with the additional height, the West Parking Garage would remain smaller in scale
compared to the Grandstand (which is 85 feet in height), None of the relationships between the contributing
resources of the Historic District would be impacted by the new inclusion of the AEA Modifications in the
proposed Project. Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR,
(Final EIR AEA at p, 16,)
Cumulative Impacts: The cumulative context for impacts to the historical setting of the Grandstand is the
City which represents all cumulative growth within the City, as represented by full implementation of the General
Plan, (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-88,) Construction of buildings of inappropriate scale or architectural styles
elsewhere in the City, including the proposed Westfield Santa Anita expansion that would compromise the
historic selling of the Grandstand could create a cumulative impact to the historic setting of the Grandstand,
26
However, development that could potentially impact the setting of the Grandstand would be limited to the
proposed Project and the Westfield Santa Anita expansion, Like the proposed Project, the Westfield Santa Anita
expansion would undergo design review to ensure that potential cumulative impacts to the setting of the
Grandstand, such as incompatible building heights would not occur, (ld,) In fact, Westfield Santa Anita has
undergone previous expansion programs without encroaching on the historic setting of the Grandstand, nor has
the previous expansion resulted in a loss of the historic integrity or historic significance of the resource, (ld, at p,
4.4-88-89,) Therefore, the development of adjacent properties as well as the proposed Project would not create a
cumulative impact. (ld, at p.4.4-89,) The project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because
the proposed Project would undergo design review and the cumulative impact is considered less than significant.
(ld,)
Impact: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064,5 of the CEQA Guidelines? (ld, at p, 4.4-86, Impact 4.4-10) .
Finding: The proposed Project will not have a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to Section 15064,5 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Id.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would result in ground disturbance, which could damage or
destroy a unique archaeological resource, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083,2(g), However,
compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than
significant. (ld,) The Specific Plan Area is located within an area that may contain a portion of the prehistoric
Gabrielii'io village of . Aluupkenga, Therefore, this area is considered to be archaeologically sensitive and to have
the potential to yield significant archaeological deposits, Notice of the proposed Project was sent to the NAHC, as
well as a list of tribal representatives provided by the NAHC (via both certified mail, return receipt requested and
through the U,S, postal service), and no comments have been received. Consequently, earth-disturbing
activities-such as grading, excavation, or trenching-associated with development in the Specific Plan Area
have the potential to damage or destroy deposits that may be present beneath the ground surface of the Project
Site, However, consistent with Performance Standard 38 of the General Plan, PR 4.4A would be incorporated into
the proposed Project to ensure that potential impacts to archaeological resources remain less than significant by
requiring monitoring of earth-disturbing activities by a qualified archaeologist, who would identify and evaluate
anyon-site archaeological resources, If the resources are significant and cannot be avoided, the qualified
archaeologist would perfonn scientific recovery and evaluation of the resources, which would ensure that
important scientific information that could be provided by these resources regarding history or prehistory is not
lost. Consequently, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (ld,)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-86, Impact 4.4- I I)
Finding: The proposed Project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries, (Id.)
Explanation: Construction activities under the proposed Project could result in the disturbance of human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, (Jd.) However, compliance with the identified
project requirement would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-86-87,)
No formal cemeteries are known to have occupied the Specific Plan Area, so any human remains encountered
would likely come from archaeological or historical archaeological contexts, (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-102,) The
Specific Plan Area may overlie a portion of a prehistoric Native American village, and the potential, therefore,
exists for the disturbance of archaeological deposits, which could potentially include human burials, (new Draft
EIR at p, 4.4-87,) Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions
for treatment in Section 5097 of the California Public Resources Code and Sections 7050,5, 705 I, and 7054 ofthe
27
California Health and Safety Code, Disturbing human remains could violate these provisions, as well as destroy
the resource, pR 4.4A includes provisions for the treatment of human burials if they are encountered, To further
ensure that this impact remains less than significant, and as required by law, pR 4.4A requires compliance with
applicable provisions of the Public Resources Code and the Health and Safety Code, Implementation of PR 4.4A
would ensure that this impact remains less than significant by ensuring appropriate examination, treatment, and
protection of human remains, if any are discovered, No mitigation is required, (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project have a cumulative impact on a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature, human remains, or an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064,5 of the CEQA
Guidelines? (new Draft EIR at p, 4.4-92,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not have a cumulative impact on a unique paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature, human remains, or an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064,5 of the
CEQA Guidelines, (Id,)
Explanation: The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative impacts to paleontological and
archaeological resources, including human remains, is the City, which includes all cumulative growth within the
City, as represented by full implementation of the General Plan, Development in the City would require grading
and excavation that could potentially affect archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains, The
cumulative effect of these projects would contribute to the continued loss of subsurface cultural resources if these
resources are not protected upon discovery, However, CEQA requirements and the City's General Plan protect
archaeological and paleontological resources and human remains, If subsurface cultural resources are protected
upon discovery as required by law, cumulative impacts to those resources would be less than significant. As
indicated above, PR 4.4A would be imposed and enforced throughout construction, and the contribution of
potential impacts from the proposed Project to the cumulative destruction of subsurface cultural resources
throughout the City would not be cumulatively considerable and would, therefore, be less than significant. (Id.)
E. Geology and Soils
Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence ofa known fault? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-15,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Id,)
Explanation: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist (CGS 1999)
indicates that the Sierra Madre and Raymond Faults are in proximity to the Specific Plan Area, Specifically, the
Raymond Fault runs through the northwest section of the Specific Plan Area, as illustrated by Figure 4,5-2
(Geologic Hazards) in the new Draft EIR. Because the CE zone, Simulcast Center, proposed Saddling Barn site,
and other infrastructure improvements are not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, the potential
for damage caused by surface fault rupture is not considered an impact. There are no known active or potentially
active faults trending toward or through the proposed development areas, Consequently, the proposed Project
would have no impact associated with the exposure of people or structures to a rupture of a known earthquake
fault. (Id.)
28
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-
16,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, (Id,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area would experience earthquake-induced groundshaking activity because of its
proximity to known active faults, During severe ground shaking, loose granular soils below the groundwater table
can liquefy, The northern portion of the Specific Plan Area is in a zone of The areas proposed to be developed in
the CE zone, as well as the Simulcast Center and the Saddling Barn location, are not in a zone of liquefaction
potential. Further, there is little likelihood that the water feature proposed for the southern end of the CE zone
would create high water table conditions because the water feature would be lined with a hard bottom to prevent
leakage, Consequently, the lack of potential liquefaction conditions in the vicinity of the water feature would not
be altered, Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact associated with the exposure of people or
structures to seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction, (Id,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Id,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, (ld,)
Explanation: The Santa Anita Park maintains its own private sanitary sewer system that connects to the sewer
system into which the proposed Project would discharge, No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are
proposed as part of the Project. Consequently, the proposed Project would have no impact associated with soils
incapable of adequately supporting such systems (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in the California Building Code ("CBC"),
Table I S- I -A (2001), creating substantial risks, either individually or cumulatively, to life or property? (new Draft
EIR at p, 4.5-16, 2S, Impact 4,5-1)
Finding: The proposed Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I S-l-A of the CBC
(2001), creating substantial risks to life or property, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-21.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project could place structures on expansive soils, as defined in
Table IS-I-A of the CBC (20()]), but would not create substantial risks to life or property, (new Draft EIR at p,
4,5-16,) Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than
significant. (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-21,)
The soils underlying the Specific Plan Area generally consist of coarse-grained soils, which are not
considered expansive, Nonetheless, the Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the
CBC with regard to soil hazard-related design, Even the slight potential for the existence of expansive soils at the
Project Site raises the possibility that foundation stability for buildings, roads, and utilities could be compromised,
The City's Building Code requires a site-specific foundation investigation and report for each construction site
that identifies potentially unsuitable soil conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation
type and design criteria that confonn to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building
29
Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33, This regulatory framework exists to address weak soils issues, including
expansion, (Id.)
The on-site water feature would be built on coarse-grained soils, which have a low to very low expansion
potential, but are anticipated to have relatively high permeability; therefore, the water feature would be built with
a bottom to eliminate the potential for leakage that could cause the groundwater table to rise and nearby soils to
expand and, as a consequence, result in structural damage to the water feature, (Id,)
With implementation of PR 4,5A, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact
regarding the exposure of people or structures to hazards related to expansive soils and no mitigation is required,
(new Draft EIR at pp, 4,5-16-17; see also PR 4,5A, MMRP at p, 3-46),
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to groundshaking, seismic-related ground
failure. or expansive soils would occur at individual building sites, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-23,) These effects are
site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Buildings and facilities in the
City would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and
recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the City's Building Code and PR 4,5A and PR 4,5B,
Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would
provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Such adherence
would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
impacts regarding seismic groundshaking or expansive soils, and, therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project
would be less than significant. (Id,)
AEA Modifications: See discussion above for a description of the AEA Modifications, The construction
methods for the AEA Modifications would be evaluated in the site-specific foundation investigation and report,
The AEA Modifications would not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with
respect to soil stability, Impacts would be similar to those under the project elements analyzed in the new Draft
EIR, (Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-21,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project individually or cumulatively expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic groundshaking? (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,5-17, 23, Impact 4,5-2)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic groundshaking, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-
22,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project could expose people and/or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects resulting from strong seismic groundshaking or seismic-related ground failure, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,5-17,) However, compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this
impact would remain less than significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-22,)
The Specific Plan Area is in a seismically active area, Active and potentially active faults in southern
California are capable of producing seismic groundshaking in the Specific Plan Area, and the area would be
anticipated to experience ground acceleration caused by these earthquakes, The Commercial Entertainment zone,
Simulcast Center, and proposed Saddling Barn site would be located southeast of the Raymond Fault and
southwest of the Sierra Madre Fault, Either of these faults is capable of generating a characteristic earthquake
between MW 6,0 and 7,0, The CE zone, and these structures, would be subject to at least severe seismically
induced groundshaking during such earthquakes, To reduce the risks associated with seismically induced
groundshaking, which could include the risk of loss, injury, or death, the design of foundations and structures
30
must consider the location and type of subsurface materials underlying the Specific Plan Area, Because the
Specific Plan Area is in CBC Seismic Zone 4 and the 5-km (3,1 miles) Near-Source Factor zone, structures would
be required to be designed in accordance with applicable parameters of the current CBC, including those of
Section 1629, "Criteria Selection," of the Building Code requiring special seismic design factors be applied to the
Project during site grading and building construction, (Id,; see Draft EIR at pp, 4,5-17-18 regarding PR 4,58.)
Adherence to the Building Code, as required by state and City law, would ensure maximum practicable
protection available for users of the buildings and associated infrastructure, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-18,) Based
on an existing regulatory framework that addresses earthquake safety issues and adherence to the requirements of
the Building Code, as required by PR 4,5B, seismically induced groundshaking would not present a substantial
adverse hazard to people working at or visiting at the Project Site. (Id,)
Over-excavation and recompaction of near-surface soils underlying the Specific Plan Area would occur
during grading to minimize seismic-related settlement potential. These recommendations would be implemented
as required by PR 4,5B, It is assumed that soil would be substantially balanced, meaning that no significant
quantity of soil would be transported off site for disposal nor would soil be transported on site for use in
construction activities, (Id,)
Adherence to the City's Building Code, as required by PR 4,5B, would ensure that the proposed Project
provides an acceptable level of protection against seismic-related hazards according to current geotechnical
engineering standards, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-21.) The proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact associated with exposing people or structures to seismic groundshaking, including effects
related to seismic-related settlement. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to groundshaking, seismic-related ground
failure, or expansive soils would occur at individual building sites, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-23,) These effects are
site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Buildings and facilities in the
City would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and
recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the City's Building Code and PR 4,5A and PR 4,5B,
Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would
provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Such adherence
would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
impacts regarding seismic groundshaking or expansive soils, and, therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project
would be less than significant. (Id,)
AEA Modifications: Based on site observation, the lateral stability for the existing Barn is provided by
seismic-resisting frames constructed of wood, It is very likely that the relocation of the Main Barn and the Terrace
would require the structures to be seismically upgraded to current Code standards, The structural stiffness
provided by the Jockeys Room would be replaced by a new Jockeys Room structure, Because the wood sheathing
on the Main Barn and Terrace roofs no longer meets Code requirements, the addition of plywood roof sheathing
would be required to establish Code-compliant roof diaphragms, The required seismic upgrade could potentially
require additional shear-resisting elements along the BarnlTerrace interface line, which could be accomplished
with cross bracing or with strategically placed shear panels, (Final EIR AEA at p, 21.) No new significant
environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with structural instability
would result from implementation of the AEA Modifications, compared to the impacts identified in the new Draft
EIR, Impacts would be similar to those identified in the new Draft EIR, (Id, at p, 22,)
Impact: Would the Project, individually or cumulatively, expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-18, 24,
Impact 4,5-3)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose project expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, (Id,; see generally Final EIR AEA
at pp, 20-22,)
31
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people and/or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving landslides and/or slope instability,
(new Draft EIR at p. 4,5-18,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id,)
The CE zone, in which the majority structural development would occur, as well as the Simulcast Center
and the Saddling Barn, and the adjacent areas in which project infrastructure would be constructed, are relatively
flat, making the possibility for landslides extremely remote, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-19,) The Specific Plan Area
is not in a designated seismic hazard zone for seismic slope instability as defined by either the State or County
(refer to Appendix E of the new Draft EIR), Consequently, there is no potential for landslides to occur in the
proposed development areas, (Id,)
Although indications of slope instability or prior ground failure were not observed in either of the slope
areas in the northern parking area, there is the potential in both areas for slope failure and/or general erosion,
Neither of these areas is in the vicinity of the proposed development or adjacent areas in which project
infrastructure would be built, and the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the failure of constructed slopes, is considered
remote, (Id,)
If the construction of temporary or permanent slopes became necessary during the implementation of the
proposed Project, site-specific slope stability design would be required to ensure adherence to the standards
contained in Appendix Chapter A33, Excavation and Grading, of the City's Building Code, as well as by
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, CALlOSHA) requirements for shoring and
stabilization, Consequently, impacts associated with constructed-slope instability are considered less than
significant. (Id.)
Because development in the City would be required to be sited and designed in accordance with
appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations consistent with the standards of the City's
Building Code, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-22.) Adherence by
the Project to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would
provide adequate levels of safety, which would ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding landslides and/or slope instability, (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project result, either individually or cumulatively, in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-19, 23, Impact 4,5-4)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. (Id.; Final EIR
AEA at pp, 20-22,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project could result in soil erosion, but would not result in the loss
of topsoil. (Id, at p, 4,5-19,) Compliance with the identified project requirements would ensure that this impact
would remain less than significant. (Id.) In a developed environment, such as the Specific Plan Area, topsoil
erosion is not an issue because there is no existing and exposed topsoil or any agricultural or biological
production that would be affected, (Id, at p, 4,5-20,) With respect to soil erosion, because the CE zone, the sites of
the Simulcast Center and Saddling Barn, and the adjacent areas in which project infrastructure would be built are,
and would be, developed, the potential for erosion during operation of the Project is considered remote, However,
because the Project includes grading and excavation operations, soils could be exposed and there would be a
potential for temporary constmction-related soil erosion, (Id.)
Displacement of soil would be controlled by the City's Building Code Appendix Chapter A33 relating to
grading and excavation, (ld,; see also Final EIR AEA at pp, 20-22,) Soil erosion after construction would be
controlled by implementation of an approved landscape and irrigation plan, (Id.) Project requirement PR 4,5C
would be implemented to require the Developer to demonstrate to the City Development Services Department that
the proposed grading plan, erosion control measures, and designs of foundations and retaining walls (if required)
comply with all applicable provisions of Chapters 16, 18, and Appendix Chapter A33 of the City's Building
Code, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-21; PR 4,5C, MMRP at p, 3-48,)
32
Adherence to the NPDES permit requirements, as required by PR 4,7A, preparation of a SUSMP, as
required by PR 4,7B, and adherence to the City's Building Code, as required by state and City law, and PR 4,SC
(requiring preparation of the SWPPP), would ensure maximum practicable protection available for soils
excavated during the construction of buildings and associated infrastructure, (Id, at p, 4,S-20; see MMRP at pp,
36-70,) In addition, as part of the City's pennitting process, a site-specific Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), which is part of the NPDES Municipal General Permit, will be prepared by the
Developer for the proposed Project. Preparation of the site-specific SUSMP is required by PR 4,7B, (See
generally Section 4,7 of the new Draft EIR,) Compliance with the City's Building Code and the NPDES permit
would minimize effects from erosion and ensure consistency with the LARWQCB Water Quality Control Plan,
(new Draft EIR at p, 4.5-21.) In view of these requirements, the proposed Project would have a less-than-
significant impact associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil. No mitigation is required, (Id.)
Impacts from erosion and loss of topsoil from site development and operation can be cumulative in effect
within a watershed, (Id, at p, 23,) The Rio Hondo Watershed forms the geographic context of cumulative erosion
impacts, (Id,) Implementation of the proposed Project would modify soil and topographic conditions at the site to
accommodate development and to provide a stable and safe physical environment. (Id, at p, 4.5-24,) The
modification of the CE zone, and installation of infrastructure during the construction phase could expose soil to
erosion by wind or water, Development of other cumulative projects in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area
could also expose soil surfaces, and further alter soil conditions, To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts
that could cause erosion, the proposed Project and cumulative projects in the adjacent area are required to be
developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, County, and City laws and ordinances,
as also required by PR 4,7A, PR 4,7B, and PR 4,SC. As a result, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts on the
Rio Hondo Watershed caused by runoff and erosion from cumulative development activity would be less than
significant. With adherence to these requirements, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts regarding
erosion and loss of topsoil would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be less than significant.
(Id.; see a/so Final EIR ABA at p, 23,)
AEA Modifications: With respect to soil erosion under the potential project modifications, because the
West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, the retail building, and the relocated Saddling Barn would be
developed on impervious surfaces or would be covered (the Saddling Barn), which is the same operating
condition as the proposed project evaluated in the new Draft EIR, the potential for erosion during operation of the
project is considered remote, In addition, adherence to construction-related NPDES permit requirements,
preparation of a SUSMP, and adherence to the City's Building Code, as required by State and City law, would
ensure equal and maximum practicable protection available for soils excavated during construction of the Project
with the AEA Modifications as for the project elements discussed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Impact: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse? (Id, at p, 4.5-21, 24, Impact 4,S-S)
Finding: The proposed Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse, (Id,; see a/so Final EIR AEA at p, 22,)
Explanation: Development in areas underlain by soils of varying stability could subject people and structures to
hazards associated with latcral spreading, subsidence, collapse, differential settlement, or heaving, However,
compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than
significant. (Id.)
The soils at the site consist generally of medium dense to dense silty sands and sand, Some fill soils may
be present in the upper 2 to IS feet in portions of the Specific Plan Area, and settlement could occur if areas of fill
were improperly compacted during site grading, Settlement can be reduced by over-excavation and recompaction
of the affected soils during grading, An acceptable degree of soil stability can be achieved for expansive or
compressible material by the Building-Code-required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement,
33
grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc,) in the excavation and construction plans that will be prepared to
address site-specific soil conditions, (Jd. at p, 4,5-22,) A site-specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by
the City's Building Code and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the
site, (Jd,)
As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed reports of soil conditions at
specific construction sites to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, subsidence, and
collapse, The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate
inappropriate soil conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions, (Jd,) The design of foundation
support must confoJ1Tl to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code
(Chapters 16, 18, and A33), as required by PR 4.50, (Jd. at p, 4,5-22; PR 4,50, MMRP at 3-48,) Adherence to the
City's codes and policies as required by PR 4,50 would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for
users of buildings and infrastructure and associated trenches, slopes, and foundations, In view of these
requirements, the proposed Project would have a less-than-significant impact associated with the exposure of
people or structures to hazards associated with unstable geologic units or soils, (Jd,) No mitigation is required,
(Id,)
As with seismic groundshaking impacts, the geographic context for analysis of impacts on development
from unstable soil conditions including landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, collapse, or expansive soil generally
is site-specific, (Id, at p, 4,5-24,) Because all development within CBC Seismic Hazard Zone 4 and the 5-km
(3,} miles) Near-Source Factor zone, which includes the City and this project site, is required to undergo analysis
of geological and soil conditions applicable to the Project Site (see PR 4,5A, PR 4,5B, and PR 4,50), and because
restrictions on development would be applied in the event that geological or soil conditions posed a risk to safety,
it is anticipated that cumulative impacts from development on soils subject to instability, subsidence, collapse,
and/or expansive soil would be less than significant. With adherence to these requirements, the Project's
contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be considered
less than significant. (Id,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed above, the Project with the AEA Modifications would be required to
comply with the City's Building Code and the CBC with respect to geologic and structural requirements, as
mandated by PR 4,5A, PR 4,5B, PR 4,5C, and PR 4,50, The City's Building Code requires a site-specific
foundation investigation and report for each construction site to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions and
to include recommendations for foundation type and design criteria that conform to the analysis and
implementation criteria described in the City's Building Code, Chapters 16, 18, and A33, With respect to grading
and construction (e,g" building) activities, and as also set forth in the air quality and noise discussions, the
requirements of the AEA Modifications would be similar to the proposed project conditions evaluated in the new
Draft EIR, and would still require that construction occurs in a single phase over about 18 months, with
construction beginning in the third quarter of 2007 and concluding in 2009, However, demolition activities under
the AEA Modifications would be reduced because the majority of the Saddling Barn would be relocated rather
than demolished (only the Jockeys Room, the entry bay, and the south ticket gates would be demolished), Grading
activities would be the same, A reduced amount of building construction would be required for the theater/cinema
building and the retail building given the combined reduction in size of about 22,000 square feet. While the
parking structure would be taller, the overall square footage and number of parking spaces would remain the
same; however, the pylons that support the structure would be longer to support the taller structure, Groundwater
was not encountered at depths of up to 50 feet in any of the four borings installed in the CE zone, which makes it
unlikely that the deeper pylons would encounter groundwater, Conversely, because the cinema/theater building
and the retail building would not be placed over the Arcadia Wash, and only a cover would be provided for
pedestrian and limited vehicular access, the pylons required to support the cover would not be as deep as required
under the project conditions evaluated in the new Oraft EIR, All of these construction methods would be
evaluated in the site-specific foundation investigation and report, The AEA Modifications would not result in any
new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with respect to soil stability, compared to conditions
34
evaluated in the new Draft EIR, and impacts would be similar to the impacts of the project elements analyzed in
the new Draft EIR,
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact: Would the Project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, resulting in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the Project area? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-19,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, resulting in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the Project area, (Jd,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, As a result, no related
safety hazard for people residing or working at the Project would occur. Consequently, no impact would occur
(Jd,)
Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-19,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intennixed with wildlands, (Jd,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is bound by the existing "College Tract" residential neighborhood to the
north; Huntington Drive to the east and south, beyond which are residential uses, Arcadia City Hall, Police
Headquarters; and the Santa Anita Golf Course, and Westfield Santa Anita and residential uses to the west. As
such, the Specific Plan Area is located in a fully developed environment and is not adjacent to any wildlands, In
addition, according to the Environmental Hazards Chapter of the City's General Plan, the Specific Plan Area is
not located in an area that is identified to be subject to fire hazards, Consequently, no risks associated with
wildland fires would affect, or be affected by, implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, no further
analysis of wildland fires is required, (Jd.)
Impact: Would employees, visitors, or construction workers be exposed to a significant health risk from bacteria,
viruses, or other pathogens in animal waste? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,5-19,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose employees, visitors, or construction workers to a significant
health risk from bacteria, viruses, or other pathogens in animal waste, (Jd,)
Explanation: The Santa Anita Park Racetrack would continue to remain in operation and be subject to the Large
CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) General Permit, under which it is currently regulated and
approved for discharge, This facility was pennitted under an individual permit (NPDES Permit CA0064203,
Order No, 99-109) and is considered a non-major discharger (design flow rate of 12,7 million gallons per day
(MGD)) with low threat to water quality, As a permitted Large CAFO, permit conditions include implementation
of a nutrient management plan, annual reporting, and other requirements, Racetrack-related discharge amounts
and requirements would not change as a result of the proposed Project; the Racetrack would continue to operate
under the Large CAFO General Permit and stormwater discharges from the Racetrack would not change, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,6-20,) Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed Project would not alter the
Racetrack permit or obligations to meet permit requirements, nor would the proposed Project result in any
additional point-source discharges to a "water of the United States," There would be no impact on point-source
waste discharge requirements or water quality standards associated with the existing and unchanged Racetrack
operations, The Racetrack would continue to comply with its CAFO permit with regard to animal waste, and there
35
would be no impact on visitors, employees, or construction workers as a result of continued (and unchanged)
Racetrack operations, (/d,)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-20, 51, Impact 4,6-1)
Finding: The proposed Project would not either individually or cumulatively create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, (/d,; Final ElR
AEA at pp, 22-23,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could involve the routine use, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials, but no significant hazard to the public or the environment would occur, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,6-24; Final EIR AEA at pp, 22-23,) Compliance with the identified project requirement would
ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (ld,)
While the retail-commercial uses of the proposed Project are not expected to introduce any unusual
hazardous materials to the area, some hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction
and operation of the proposed Project and would consist mostly of typical household-type cleaning products as
well as maintenance products (e,g" paints, solvents, cleaning products), and potentially, propane, (new Draft EIR
at pp, 4,6-21.) Additionally, grounds and landscape maintenance within the development area could also use a
wide variety of commercial products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners and
degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticideslherbicides, (Id,)
Implementation of existing hazardous materials regulations, as set forth in PR 4,6A, were established at
the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations to reduce the risk to human health and the
environment from the routine use of hazardous substances, (Id.)
Exposure of construction workers or Speci fic Plan Area occupants to hazardous materials could occur by
improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during construction or operation of the
proposed Project, particularly by untrained personnel, transportation accident, environmentally unsound disposal
methods, or fire, explosion, or other emergencies, all of which could result in adverse health effects, The types
and amounts of hazardous materials would vary according to the nature of the activity, In some cases, it is the
type of hazardous material that is potentially hazardous; in others, it is the amount of hazardous material that
could present a hazard, (/d,)
36
Transportation of Hazardous Materials: The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes
strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and implemented by CCR title 13, (Id,) The transportation of hazardous materials can result in
accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion, (Id,) The precise increase in the amount of hazardous
materials transported to or from the Specific Plan Area as a result of implementation of the proposed Project
cannot be definitively predicted due to the pending selection of tenants for the future retail-commercial stores,
(new Draft EIR at pp, 4,6-21-22,) It is possible that licensed vendors could bring some hazardous materials to and
from the Specific Plan Area; however, appropriate documentation for all hazardous waste that is transported in
connection with project-site activities would be provided as required for compliance with the existing hazardous
materials regulations described in PR 4,6A, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-22,) Compliance with PR 4,6A, which
requires compliance with all applicable federal and state laws related to the transportation of hazardous materials,
and utilization of only Baldwin A venue as the pre-approved haul route for hazardous materials to and from the
Project Site per mitigation measure MM 4,6-4, would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during
transit, thereby ensuring that a less-than-significant impact would occur. (Id,)
Hazardous Materials Use and Storage: The Hazardous Materials Management Act requires that
businesses handling or storing certain amounts of hazardous materials prepare a Hazardous Materials Business
Plan, which includes an inventory of hazardous materials stored on site (above specified quantities), an
emergency response plan, and an employee training program, Businesses that use, store, or handle 55 gallons of
liquid, 500 pounds of a solid, or 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at standard temperature and pressure require
this business plan, For those employees who would work with hazardous materials (to the extent that there are
any), the amount of hazardous materials that are handled at anyone time are generally relatively small given the
type of land uses proposed as part of this project, thus reducing the potential consequences of an accident during
handling, Further, the proposed Project would be required to comply with federal and state laws to eliminate or
reduce the consequence of hazardous materials accidents, Therefore, the risk of upset from hazardous materials
handling would be less than significant. (ld,)
Hazardous materials are required to be stored in designated areas designed to prevent accidental release to
the environment. CBC (CBC) requirements prescribe safe accommodations for materials that present a moderate
explosion hazard, high fire or physical hazard, or health hazards, Compliance with all applicable federal and state
laws related to the storage of hazardous materials, as required by PR 4,6A, would be implemented to maximize
containment (through safe handling and storage practices) and to provide for prompt and effective cleanup if an
accidental release occurs, thereby ensuring that a less-than-significant impact would occur. (new Draft EIR at pp,
4,6-22,)
Disposal of Hazardous Waste: Federal, state, and local regulations also govern the disposal of wastes
identified as hazardous, (Id,) No impacts with regard to animal waste have been identified for the proposed
Project. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-23,)
Portions of the Racetrack area were used during WWII as an Army Ordnance Center to conduct training
activities for the Army Ordnance Corps, However, on the southern parking lot, where most construction activities
would occur, only barracks existed; all training activities were held on the infield and north parking areas,
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that that previously undiscovered military ordnance is buried on the site, If any
such materials are found during construction, appropriate handling would be required pursuant to applicable laws
and regulations pertaining to all types of hazardous waste, and this impact would be less than significant. (Id,)
The project site is not listed with the EPA as a generator of hazardous waste (other than as identified as a
Large CAFO), Operation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to require the handling of any hazardous or
other materials that would result in production of hazardous waste, Asbestos, lead, or other hazardous material
encountered during demolition or construction activities would be disposed of in compliance with all pertinent
regulations for the handling of such waste, The portions of the Grandstand to be redeveloped would be closed
during demolition and construction activities, Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact from the
proposed Project with regard to disposal of hazardous waste, (Id,)
37
In summary, compliance with PR 4,6A would ensure that this impact is less than significant by requiring
compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of hazardous materials use,
transportation, and disposal through the implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting
requirements. (Jd,) The regulations listed in PR 4,6A must be implemented by employersfbusinesses, as
appropriate, and are monitored by the state (e,g" OSHA in the workplace or DTSC for hazardous waste) and local
jurisdictions (e,g" the Arcadia Fire Department), (Jd,) Adherence to PR 4.6A would ensure compliance with
existing safety standards related to the use and storage of hazardous materials, and the safety procedures
mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (RCRA, California Hazardous Waste
Control Law, and principles prescribed by the California Department of Health Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health), which would ensure that risks resulting from the
routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes associated with
construction and implementation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at pp,
4,6-23-24,) No mitigation is required, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-24,)
AEA Modifications: During construction activities, demolition of the Saddling Barn could result in the
release of asbestos or lead-based paint, which were common building componentslmaterials used prior to 1980,
While the majority of the Saddling Barn would no longer be demolished (with the exception of the Jockeys
Room, the entry bay, and the south ticket gates), it is possible that these materials could still be released into the
environment, although to a much lesser extent. Any materials found during demolition of the Jockeys Room, the
entry bay, and the south ticket gates would be disposed according to current safety regulations, PR 4,6B requires
that a qualified professional survey the Saddling Barn (and other components of the project) for asbestos, lead-
based paint, and other hazardous materials and prepare an abatement report to ensure that any potential health
risks to construction workers and the public are minimized, No new significant environmental impacts or
substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with the potential release of asbestos or lead-based
paint would result from implementation of the AEA Modifications, (Final EIR AEA at pp, 22-23,) With respect to
the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes and/or the
accidental release of hazardous materials, there are no elements of the AEA Modifications that would alter the use
of these materials during construction or operational activities, There would be no changes in the operational
characteristics of the West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, or the retail building, Similarly, the use
of the Saddling Barn would not change, and it would be located in approximately the same place as the new
Saddling Barn evaluated in the new Draft EIR, Given the overall decrease in square footage associated with the
cinema/theater building and the retail building, it is likely that the use of hazardous materials would be less, Also,
the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations would ensure that
risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials or hazardous
wastes associated with construction or operation of the proposed project would be avoided or reduced, and
adherence to PR 4,6A would further ensure compliance with existing safety standards related to the use and
storage of hazardous materials, No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials
or hazardous wastes andlor the accidental release of hazardous materials would result from the inclusion of the
AEA Modifications in the proposed Project, compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts
would be Jess than under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Jd.)
38
Cumulative Imoacts: The proposed Project consists of a proposed retail/commercial development within
the Specific Plan Area, which are not uses that would involve the substantial use, handling, transportation, or
disposal of hazardous material. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-51.) As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to
occur is limited and risks would be limited, Although each development site has potentially unique hazardous
materials considerations, it is expected that future growth would generally comply with the range of federal, state,
and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials, and would be subject to existing and future
programs of enforcement by the appropriate regulatory agencies, For these reasons, cumulative impacts resulting
from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant. Additionally, because
the proposed Project would also be required to comply with applicable statutes and regulations, which would
ensure that the Project would not result in significant public hazards as a result of hazardous materials use,
transport or disposal, the Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative
impact of the Project would be less than significant. (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively emit hazardous emissions or result in the handling
of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-29, 53, Impact 4.6-3)
Finding: The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard due to hazardous emissions or the handling
of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
(Id,; Final EIR AEA at p, 23,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in hazardous emissions within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. However, this impact would be less than significant. (Id,;
Final EIR AEA at p, 23,)
No public school is located within one-quarter mile of the Specific Plan Area, and no public schools are
proposed within this radius, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-29,) However, three private schools, the Holy Angels
School, Barnhart School, and Arroyo Pacific Academy, are located within one-quarter mile of the Specific Plan
Area, Holy Angels School is adjacent and south of the Specific Plan Area, at 360 Campus Drive, (Id,) Barnhart
School is adjacent and northeast of the Specific Plan Area, at 240 West Colorado Boulevard, (new Draft EIR at p,
4,6-35,) Arroyo Pacific Academy is located at 41 West Santa Clara Street. (Id,; see id, at Figure 4,6-2 (Schools in
the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area)),
Hazardous emissions would consist of toxic air contaminants, which refer to a diverse group of air
pollutants that are capable of chronic and acute adverse effects on human health, They include both organic and
inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources, including gasoline stations,
motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities, Toxic
air contaminants are different from criteria pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have not been
established for them. For the proposed Project, construction would involve utilization of diesel-powered trucks
and equipment, which would emit toxic air contaminants in the form of diesel particulate matter. (Id,)
A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was perfonned to estimate the potential chronic non-cancer health risks
of diesel particulate matter generated by construction of the proposed Project (see Appendix B2 to the new Draft
EIR), (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-30,) If the chronic Hazard Index (HI) is less than one at the point of maximum
impact (PM I) (shown on Figure 4,6-2 [Schools in the Vicinity of the Specific Plan Area] of the new Draft EIR),
then no adverse impacts are predicted at any of the receptors and the HRA is complete, with no further analysis
required, If the HI is greater than one, then additional analysis and mitigation may be necessary, At the point of
maximum impact, the results indicate the chronic non-cancer HI for diesel particulate matter (DPM) associated
with the construction activities at the proposed Santa Anita Park project is 0,39, which is less than one, The PMI
is located on the Santa Anita Park project property line just west of the Methodist Hospital annex building, Since
the diesel particulate matter Hazard Index is less than one at the PMI, the HI is less than one at all sensitive
receptors, No adverse health impacts are expected from diesel particulate matter emissions from construction
activities associated with the proposed Santa Anita Park project. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
39
Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from nonnal day-to-
day activities on the Project Site after occupation, Stationary area source emissions would be generated by the
consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance
equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site,
Emissions from these sources are not considered toxic air contaminants (except for diesel, as noted above), and
would not be classified as hazardous emissions, Unless industrial uses that could emit toxic air contaminants are
proposed on a site, diesel emissions from truck deliveries are the only potential source of operational toxic air
contaminants, A subsequent HRA (Appendix 82) was prepared that examined the cancer risk from diesel delivery
trucks during operation of the proposed Project. Due to the location of existing roads serving the Project Site,
truck travel associated with the Project will not be restricted to anyone road, The expected truck traffic for the
proposed Project will be distributed among several routes, each of which passes near existing residences, The
delivery trucks are expected to travel along at least four different routes that may pass near residents, which could
cause an increase in truck travel past any given resident of two to three trucks per hour, a minor increase in truck
traffic above existing traffic volumes, The small number of trucks that would pass any given residence would
result in less-than-significant adverse health risks, The predicted cancer risk estimated for the proposed Project is
1.26 in one million, well below the SCAQMD significance threshold of lOin one million, Therefore, the
carcinogenic health effects associated with the DPM emissions from the delivery trucks at the proposed Project
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: While the project site is located within Y. mile of an existing school, none of the
AEA Modifications are within Y. mile of an existing school. Also, with respect to vehicular service or emergency
access, none of the AEA Modifications would substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and
presented in Figure 3-21 of the new Draft EIR, No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more
severe environmental impacts associated with the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing school would result from the AEA Modifications, compared to conditions
analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in the new
Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 23,)
Cumulative Imoacts: Future development in the City may involve hazardous emissions or the handling of
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
(new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-53,) It is anticipated that future development would comply with applicable laws and
regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes, and that risks associated with hazardous emissions or materials to
existing or proposed schools located within one-quarter mile of future development would be eliminated or
reduced through proper handling, disposal practices, and/or clean-up procedures, (Id,)
With respect to acutely hazardous emissions, if the Hazard Index (HI) for diesel particulate mailer (DPM)
is less than one, no further analysis is required. Development of the cumulative projects could result in diesel
particular emissions from construction and operation of these projects which, when combined with the proposed
Project, could result in an HI exceeding one, However, construction of the related projects would not occur
simultaneously, and not 0111 of the cumulative projects would be within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school; therefore, the cumulative HI from the related projects is not anticipated to exceed one, and thc cumulative
impact would be less than significant. At the point of maximum impact (PM I), the results indicate the chronic
non-cancer HI for DPM associated with the construction activities at the proposed Santa Anita Park project is less
than one, The PMI is located on the Santa Anita Park project property line just west of the Methodist Hospital
annex building, The diesel particulate mailer HI is also less than one at the PMI; thus, the HI is less than one at 0111
sensitive receptors, The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to acutely
hazardous emissions resulting from construction activities, and the impact would be considered less than
signi ficant. (Id,)
Although a cancer risk factor has been established for DPM, the Office of Environmental Health Hazards
HRA cancer risk factors assumes a continuous exposure over a 70-year time frame, Therefore, it is not
meaningful to evaluate long-tenn cancer impacts from construction activities that last only 18 months, (Jd,) The
significance of cumulative air quality impacts, including the health effects of DPM, is typically detennined
40
according to the project specific impact methodology recommended by the SCAQMD, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-
53-54,) In order to evaluate the potential cancer risks posed by DPM resulting from the operation of the proposed
Project, a comparative analysis was performed against a similar, but much larger project in North Rialto,
Califomia, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-54,) Results for the Rialto facility showed potential cancer risks below the
SCAQMD significance threshold of lOin I million, and by scaling the predicted cancer risk from the Rialto
facility with the emissions of the proposed Project, the cancer risk estimated for the proposed Project is 1,26 in
one million, which is also well below the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million, As the
significance of cumulative air quality impacts is typically determined according to the project specific impact
methodology and thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD, the cumulative carcinogenic health effects
associated with the DPM emissions from the delivery trucks at the proposed Project would be less than
significant. No cumulative adverse health impacts are expected from diesel particulate matter emissions from
construction or operation of the proposed Santa Anita Park project. Therefore, the cumulative impact from DPM
would be considered less than significant, and the proposed Project's contribution to this impact would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be considered less than significant. (Jd,)
The proposed Project and, it is assumed, all other projects, would comply with all applicable hazardous
materials and disclosure requirements; therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts
associated with handling of acutely hazardous materials within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school
would not be cumulatively considerable, The cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant. (Jd,)
Impact: Would the Project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, either individually or cumulatively create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-34, 54, Impact 4.6-5)
Finding: The proposed Project is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment. (Jd, at pp 4,6-34, 55; Final EIR AEA at pp, 22-23,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would be located on sites that are included on a
list of hazardous materials sitr:s pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962,5, but would not create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-34,) This is considered a less-than-significant
impact. (Jd,) All previously leaking USTs on the Project Site have been remediated and properly closed, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,6-36,) The status of the two remaining septic tanks utilized by the Assembly Center during 1942
is unknown; however, no evidence of leaking or contamination exists, The Phase I ESA prepared by Kleinfelder,
including the additional sources of environmental records listed above, the site visit, the ESA updates dated
December 19, 2005, and September 2006, and a database search on August 5, 2006, revealed no evidence of
discolored soil, stressed vegetation, ponds, or lagoons on site, The ESA further concluded that no listed sites in
the EDR regulatory database report were found to pose a recognized environmental condition, Therefore, impacts
from development on the Project Site due to the presence of sites listed as hazardous materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962,5 would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required, (Jd,)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would not alter the likelihood for discovering unanticipated
soil or groundwater contamination during construction activities, since there are no known underground storage
tanks or other sources of contaminants listed in Government Code Section 65962,5 within the development areas,
Further, mitigation measure MM 4,6-2 identifies the process that would be undertaken in the event that
unanticipated hazardous materials are found in the soil or groundwater, No new significant environmental impacts
or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with the potential discovery of unanticipated soil
or groundwater contamination would result from implementation of the AEA Modifications, Impacts would be
the same as under the Project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 22,)
Cumulative Impact: Future development in the City may be located on or near a site included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-54,)
It is anticipated that future development would comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to
hazardous wastes, and that risks associated with identified hazardous materials sites would be eliminated or
41
reduced through proper handling, disposal practices, andlor clean-up procedures, In many cases, development
applicatioris for projects affected by hazardous materials on identified sites would be denied by the City if
adequate cleanup or treatment is not completed or feasible, Accordingly, cumulative impacts on the public or
environment associated with development on or near hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. All
previously leaking USTs on the Project Site have been remediated and properly closed, The status of the two
remaining septic tanks utilized by the Assembly Center during 1942 is unknown; however, no evidence of leaking
or contamination exists, All remaining USTs on site conform to applicable laws and regulations and are registered
and permitted by the Arcadia Fire Department. If future UST-related cleanup were determined to be necessary, all
work would be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board
Underground Storage Tank Program, All non-UST hazardous waste storage locations are managed in accordance
with all applicable federal and state laws, such as RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law,
Hazardous materials impacts are usually localized, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-55,) As a result, the proposed
Project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with development on or near hazardous material sites
would not be cumulatively considerable, This is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. (Jd,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively create a significant health risk to the public or the
environment through provision of aquatic habitat suitable for disease-carrying waterfowl and resulting risk of
infection, human discomfort, or injury? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,6-40, 55, Impact 4,6-7)
Finding: The proposed Project would not create a significant health risk to the public or the environment through
provision of aquatic habitat suitable for disease-carrying waterfowl and resulting risk of infection, human
discomfort, or injury, (Jd,)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would not create a significant health risk to the public, resident
horses, or the environment through provision of aquatic habitat suitable for disease-carrying waterfowl and risk of
infection, human discomfort, or injury, (new Draft EIR at p. 4,6-40,) Compliance with the identified project
requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (ld,)
The provision of a water feature would also be expected to attract ducks, geese, and bird populations that
are capable of hosting the avian flu, thus exposing visitors and employees of the proposed Project to the risk of
infection, This is considered a potentially significant impact. lt has long been known that wild birds represent a
carrier for avian influenza viruses worldwide, This is a concern because many of these birds are migratory and
travel over long distances across international borders, There is a potential risk that avian flu might be carried
along migration routes of wild water birds to densely populated areas and along migratory flyways, The complex
overlapping of major flyways and the lack of infonnation on migratory species potentially involved in avian flu
disease spread make simple association of wild bird flyways with outbreaks of the disease difficult. (ld,)
At present, avian influenza remains largely a disease of birds, The species barrier is significant: the virus
does not easily cross from birds to infect humans, Despite the infection of tens of millions of poultry over large
geographical areas since mid-2003, fewer than 200 human cases of avian flu have been confirmed, Most cases
have occurred in rural households where small flocks of poultry are kept. Very few cases have been detected in
presumed high-risk groups, such as commercial poultry workers, workers at live poultry markets, cullers,
veterinarians, and health staff caring for patients without adequate protective equipment. As there have been few
documented cases of person- to-person spread of avian flu (and never beyond one person), any risk to visitors and
workers of the proposed development would be purely speculative at this time, Since the risk from avian flu does
not currently exist in the Project area and is speculative, this impact is considered less than significant. (ld,)
With incorporation of PR 4,6F (MMRP at pp, 3-59-60,), the less-than-significant health risk to humans
and horses would be further reduced, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-42,) A less-than-significant impact would result.
No mitigation is required, (ld,)
Cumulative Impacts: Future development in the City may also involve water features such as ponds or
fountains that could present an increased health risk for vector-borne illness such as West Nile virus or the avian
flu. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-55,) In addition, the proposed Project's water feature, combined with other existing
42
water features within the City, such as the Arcadia Wash, the Los Angeles County Arboretum, and the Arcadia
County Park and Santa Anita Oolf Course to the east of the Project Site, could increase the potential health risk
from disease-carrying insects and birds, It is anticipated that all future development would implement BMPs with
regard to vector control, and local jurisdictions would be responsible for ensuring that appropriate mitigation,
including recirculation, aeration, and filtration systems, is implemented for all future projects, and that mitigation
is implemented to discourage use of the water feature by waterfowl or migratory birds, Cumulative projects
outside the City limits are not within the City's control; however, these projects are also subject to local, state, and
federal laws, which would limit associated cumulative health risks, Thus, cumulative impacts would not be
significant. Mitigation measures and project requirements are included in the proposed Project that would reduce
project specific impacts on vector control to a less-than-significant level and ensure that the proposed Project's
contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, Consequently, the proposed Project's
cumulative impact associated with increased health risk from disease-carrying insects and birds would be less
than significant. (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively create a significant safety risk to the public
through provision of an open water feature? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-42, 55, Impact 4,6-8)
Finding: The proposed Project would not create a significant safety risk to the public through provision of an
open water feature, (Id,; see also Final EIR, Responses to Comments, Topical Response 13 (Water Feature),)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project could create a significant safety risk to the public through the
provision of an open water feature, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-42,) However, compliance with the identified project
requirements in PR 4,60 would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (See PR 4,60, MMRP,
at pp, 3-59-61); Draft EIR at p, 4,6-42-43,) Implementation of PR 4,60 will minimize the safety risk to the public
of drowning by providing features to ensure public safety and 24-hour manned monitoring, This impact would,
therefore, be reduced to a less-than-significantlevel. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-43,)
Cumulative Imoacts: Future projects in the southern portion of the City could include open water features
that could present a safety risk to the public, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-55,) However, these impacts would be
localized, and it is anticipated that the City would require safety measures similar to those suggested for the
proposed Project to minimize the risks to the public from drowning, Private pools and water features would be
required to comply with the Arcadia Municipal Code, Public pools will also be required to comply with
provisions of the Uniform Building Code with respect to safety features, (Id,) Therefore, there is a less-than-
significant cumulative impact with respect to safety hazards from open water features and the proposed Project
would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact, and impacts would be less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-55-56,)
Impact: Would the Project create a significant safety risk to the public or to resident horses through improper
design of subsurface utility vaults that could provide nesting sites or provision of vegetation attractive to
Africanized honeybees? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-43, 66, Impact 4,6-9)
Finding: The proposed Project would not individually or cumulatively create a significant safety risk to the
public or to resident horses through improper design of subsurface utility vaults that could provide nesting sites or
provision of vegetation attractive to Africanized honeybees, (Id.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create a significant safety risk to the public or to
resident horses through improper design of subsurface utility vaults or provision of vegetation attractive to
Africanized honeybees ("AHB"), Implementation of PR 4,6D would ensure that underground utility boxes and
vaults are designed appropriately to exclude honeybees, as well as mosquitoes and other insects, (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,6-43-44,) To further minimize the safety risk from AHB plants identified as particularly attractive for
foraging AHB will not be included in the landscaping to be provided for the proposed Project, as required by
PR 4,6H, (ld.; PR 4,6H, MMRP at p, 3-62,) While other vegetation may also provide foraging habitat to the AHB,
elimination of particularly attractive vegetation by implementation of PR 4,6H would reduce potential impacts
caused by the AHB to be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-45,) Therefore, safety
43
risks from African honeybees would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with incorporation of PR 4,6D and
PR 4,6H, No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Cumulative Impacts: Future development in the southern portion of the City would likely include
underground vaults and valve boxes, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-56,) If construction guidelines as outlined in
PR 4,6D are not followed for these other projects, there could be increased risk to the public from nesting of AHB
in improperly designed subsurface vaults and valve boxes, This could be a significant cumulative impact.
However, on a project level, the subsurface infrastructure will be designed and constructed in accordance with
PR 4,6D, ensuring that the impact of the Project would not be cumulatively considerable, Therefore, this is
considered a less-than-significant cumulative impact. (Id.) Cumulative development in the City could also utilize
plant materials particularly attractive to foraging AHB, As no ordinances exist that prohibit the use of this plant
material, the cumulative impact could be significant. However, the amount of foraging materials necessary to
attract AHB and, therefore, pose a significant risk to public health and safety, are undetermined and speculative at
this time, The proposed Project would incorporate PR 4,6H, which prohibits the use of plants appearing on Table
4,6-3 (List of Africanized Honeybee Hosts) of the new Draft EIR, and minimizes the safety risk to the public from
AHB, The proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable,
Therefore, this is considered a less-than-significant cumulative impact. (Id,)
Impact: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing
or working in the Project area? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-45, 56, Impact 4,6-10)
Finding: The proposed Project would not either individually or cumulatively result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project area that is located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public airport, (Id,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
(new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-45,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id,) The Specific Plan Area is not
located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, The EI Monte
Airport is located more than two miles south of the Project boundary and the Specific Plan Area is not beneath EI
Monte Airport flight paths (Markovic 2006), However, according to Article III-Public Safety of the Arcadia
Municipal Code, "the Santa Anita Park, by reason of its size and accessibility, encourages careless pilots, as well
as pilots of emergency landing aircraft, to use the track facilities as a landing strip," Consequently, flight
operations could present a risk of accident to construction workers and future occupants at the Specific Plan Area
from crash- or emergency landings, An aircraft accident is a high consequence event, and when a crash does occur
the result is often catastrophic, However, while aircraft may operate over the Specific Plan Area, no crashes or
emergency landings have occurred in the last thirty years in the Specific Plan Area (Butler 2005), In addition,
although the risk of an accident involving crash- or emergency landing is acknowledged for the Specific Plan
Area, it should be noted that the risk to people on the ground of being killed or injured by aircraft accidents is
small. Although the Arcadia Municipal Code warns of this risk, the Specific Plan Area is not located within an
airport land use plan, and the proposed Project development of retail-commercial uses and the Simulcast Center
are consistent with the land use designations of the City's General Plan, Thus, the risk of exposure to safety
hazards associated with the operation of aircraft in the Specific Plan Area vicinity is extremely low, (Jd.)
Cumulative Impacts: Future development in the southern portion of the City could be located within an
airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-56,)
Although each future development project would be subject to the risks associated with the exposure to safety
hazards from aircraft fly-bys overhead, these risks vary according to location and other various factors, and are,
therefore, unique, It is also likely that such risk, if sufficiently high, would be a factor in any decision to approve
or deny future development proposals, As a result, cumulative risks to future development associated with
exposure to safety hazards from overhead aircraft would be less than significant. Additionally, because the
44
proposed Project is not located within two miles of a public airport, cumulative contribution of the Project to this
impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would, therefore, be less than significant. (Jd,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (new Draft ElR at pp, 4,6-46, 57,
Impact 4,6-1 I)
Finding: The proposed Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, (Jd,; see also Final EIR AEA at p, 23,)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not interfere with an adopted emergency
response pian and/or emergency evacuation plan, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-46,) Compliance with the identified
project requirement would ensure that this impact woutd remain less than significant. (Jd.)
Santa Anita Park currently has an Emergency Action and Evacuation Plan ("EAEP") that was developed
to protect employees, contractors, visitors, the environment, and assets by ensuring adequate preparedness with
appropriate response to emergency situations, Designed to be applicable to any type of emergency that may affect
Santa Anita Park, the EAEP provides an organizational and procedural framework for the management of
emergency incidents, including evacuation procedures, The EAEP also describes the coordination with outside
agencies for the further protection of Santa Anita employees, visitors, and property, as well as the surrounding
community and environment. (Jd,)
According to the Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, which serves to guide development and design of the
Specific Plan Area, a Master Security Plan (MSP) (refer to Appendix L3 of the new Draft EIR) would be
provided to the Arcadia Police Department for review and approval. The proposed Master Security Plan, which is
required by PR 4,61, includes, among other things, emergency response procedures that are consistent with the
Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan ("NHMP") and Santa Anita Park's EAEP, The proposed MSP is organized into
several sections, including (I) a description of the Project and security facilities; (2) a description of training
programs for public safety and hospitality personnel; (3) a description of general security operations at the
Project; and (4) a set of policies and procedures for managing and regulating public behavior and use of the
private development, and for addressing emergency situations that may arise, The guidelines outlined in the
proposed MSP are designed to provide information on emergency response and crisis management and further
outlines the steps employees of the proposed Project must take in an emergency situation, An on-site Command
Center is to be provided in the development. A Crisis Coordinator and Public Safety Department for the Project
will be identified and placed in charge of any emergency operations, A site plan illustrating locations of security
offices, the Crisis Command Center, emergency access routes, and assembly areas are identified in the proposed
MSP, The proposed MSP also includes protocols for the interface of the Project's private security staff with
Racetrack security personnel and sworn City police officers, and is consistent with the emergency response
procedures contained in the NHMP, The proposed MSP includes provisions for a police officer workspace
adjacent to or in connection with the planned security office, if requested by the Arcadia Police Department. The
proposed MSP has been designed to integrate and be consistent with the Park's EAEP, In addition, adequate
ingress and egress for emergency vehicles are provided in the Specific Plan in compliance with the City's
Municipal Code, (Jd,) See Figure 4,6-3 (Emergency Access Plan) of the new Draft EIR. (Jd,) See also Draft EIR
p, 4,6-47 and PR 4,61, MMRP at p, 3-63,
The proposed Project would be constructed on an emergency evacuation staging site as identified in the
NHMP, However, the evacuation staging could occur on anyone or more of the Racetrack's parking areas,
including the infield, and, as the Grandstand, terraces, and infield area can accommodate more than 70,000
people, there would be adequate space at Santa Anita Park to evacuate the entire population of the City to the
Racetrack site alone, if necessary, With development of the southerly parking lot, the remaining parking areas (as
well as the parking for the proposed development) would also remain available as an evacuation area, In addition,
the Project's parking garages (ground floor levels) could be used for evacuation areas and would provide shelter
from the elements that does not currently exist on the southern parking lot. As multiple other areas are designated
as evacuation sites, the loss of the southern parking lot at the Racetrack would not represent a significant
45
percentage of the City's available evacuation space, and would not adversely affect the ability of the City to
respond to a major natural disaster or terrorist attack, (ld,)
The proposed Project is not expected to reduce the utility of the Specific Plan Area for use as an
emergency evacuation area, (n the event of a citywide emergency such as a large-scale earthquake, the proposed
development structures, which include a theater building and the parking lots, could be utilized as temporary
shelters for displaced housing and injured citizens, The structures that would be built on the Specific Plan Area
would be designed according to the CBC and the most up-to-date seismic design standards, As such, these
structures would be less likely to sustain damage than older buildings that are located throughout the City, (Id,)
In addition, the City has an option, under the necessary circumstances, to request mutual aid from other
jurisdictions, including nearby cities, counties, the California OES, and ultimately, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), The NHMP authorizes the City's Emergency Services Director to modify the
City's emergency response protocol and resources as necessary, (ld,)
As required by law, the proposed Project also would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, as
well as regulate the storage of flammable and explosive materials and their transport within the Project Site and
would comply with applicable Unifonn Fire Code regulations for fire protection systems and equipment, general
safety precautions, and distances from structures to fire hydrants, Further, the proposed Project would be required
to provide sufficient water pressure and fire flows for the Project Site, (ld,; see also Draft EIR at Figure 4,6-3
[Emergency Access Plan II
The City's NHMP designates the parking lot areas of the Santa Anita Racetrack as an emergency
evacuation area, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-48,) In addition, nearby Arcadia High School is recognized by the City
as an emergency evacuation area. The following other locations are also listed as evacuation sites: Baldwin
Stocker School; Bonita Park; Camino Grove School; Dana Jr. High School; First A venue Jr, High School;
Foothill Jr. High School; Highland Oaks School; Holly Ave School; Holy Angels School; Hugo Reid School;
Longley Way School; and Santa Anita School (ld,)
The NHMP also identifies evacuation routes through the City, which include Santa Anita A venue from
Huntington Drive to the southern border of the City, and Huntington Drive in its entirety, Implementation of the
proposed Project would not abandon any existing public rights of way, In tenns of evacuation routes, both Santa
Anita A venue and Huntington Drive would maintain their current configuration and number of lanes, The
proposed Project would not result in the placement of an impediment to the flow of traffic such as medians, The
incremental increase of traffic along identified evacuation routes would not significantly adversely affect
evacuation procedures, as, in the event of emergency, all lanes could be opened to allow for traffic flow to move
in one direction and traffic would be controlled by the appropriate agencies, such as the Arcadia Police
Department.
During construction of the proposed Project, temporary road or lane closures, which could potentially
block emergency access and/or evacuation routes, could potentially occur along Baldwin A venue and Huntington
Drive, which are located immediately adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, No lane closures are anticipated during
construction along Santa Anita A venue from Huntington Drive south, as this segment is not immediately adjacent
to the Project Site, In addition, the Project Site is located within a developed area and multiple access points are
available, Major access to the site includes Baldwin A venue, Colorado Place, Holly A venue, Huntington Drive,
Santa Anita Avenue, and Centennial Way, and regional access is provided by the 1-210. (Id,) The presence of
multiple alternative routes to the Specific Plan Area minimizes the potential for interference with emergency
routes during construction, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,6-50-51.) Construction traffic along identified evacuation
routes would not significantly adversely affect evacuation procedures, as all lanes could be opened for traffic flow
to move in one direction, as noted above, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-51.) Nonetheless, should temporary road or
lane closures occur on Baldwin A venue or Huntington Drive, the proposed Project could interfere with
emergency evacuation, However, the City requires that any lane closures for construction be pennitted through
the Public Works Department, which then coordinates such lane closures with the Arcadia Police and Fire
46
Departments as necessary, Through this permitting process, lane closures that would interfere with emergency
evacuation or access are avoided, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: With respect to vehicular service or emergency access, none of the AEA
Modifications with respect to the southward movement of West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, or
retail building would substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and presented in Figure 3-21 of the
new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR, (Final
EIR AEA at p, 23,)
Cumulative Impacts: Construction and operation associated with the related projects and other future
development in the City and surrounding area would not interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation
plans. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,6-57,) It is anticipated that future development projects will undergo CEQA review
of potential impacts on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, and will be required to implement
measures necessary to mitigate potential impacts, The City has in place a permitting process for any lane closures
as a result of construction, which would be required of any future projects in the City, As a result, cumulative
impacts relating to interference with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than
significant. (ld,)
Construction and operation activities under the proposed Project with respect to emergency response or
evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency
access would be subject to the City's pennitting process, which coordinates with the Police and Fire Departments
to ensure that emergency access is maintained at all times, Furthermore, the potential for any increased delays
along evacuation routes from the incremental increase in new workers and patrons resulting from implementation
of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant. As a result, the proposed Project's contribution
to cumulative impacts associated with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would not be
cumulatively considerable, Therefore, the cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be less than
significant. (Id,)
G. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,7-33, 64,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,
(Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 23-24,)
Explanation: Pollutant discharge amounts and requirements would not change as a result of the proposed Project;
the Racetrack and stable area would continue to operate under the existing NPDES permit CA0064203 (Order 99-
109) or renewed permit, and the amounts and types of discharges would not change compared to existing
conditions, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-33,) Construction and operation of the proposed Project would not alter the
Santa Anita Park Racetrack permit or obligations to meet permit requirements, nor would the proposed Project
result in any additional point-source discharges to a water of the United States, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-33-34,)
No NPDES permit would be required for the proposed Project, unless groundwater dewater is required, which is
unanticipated, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-34,) There would be no impact on point-source waste discharge
requirements or water quality standards associated with the existing and unchanged Santa Anita Park Racetrack
operations (ld,)
The Racetrack stable area is considered a Large CAFO because it houses more than 500 horses at a single
time, The facility is defined as a nonmajor discharger (design flow rate of not more than 12,7 million gallons per
day [mgd]), with no wastewater treatment system, and it poses only a minor threat to water quality, Conditions of
its NPDES (and Large CAFO designation) Permit CA0064203 (Order 99-109) require certain infrastructure and
BMP improvements, In summary, the improvements are to prevent discharge of all dry-weather process
wastewater from all production areas (principally the stable area) to the Arcadia Wash, divert the first 0,1 inch of
rainfall from the stable areas into the sanitary sewer system, implement other BMPs for compliance with
requirements under the 40 CFR 412 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Rule (Large CAFO designation) and
47
implement a water quality monitoring and reporting program, When the NPDES (and large CAFO designation)
permit was issued, a companion Cease and Desist Order (COO No, 99-110) was prepared to provide a time
schedule for meeting the conditions of Order 99-109 because there was no way the Racetrack could immediately
eliminate all dry-weather discharges as specified in the permit. Consequently, a time schedule for compliance was
necessary, The COO explicitly identified when compliance with conditions were required along with additional
required BMPs, including implementation of a Manure Management Plan and weekly maintenance inspections
for drains to the Arcadia Wash, (Id,)
Based on findings from the April 2, 2004, Compliance Evaluation and subsequent site inspection
conducted by RWQCB staff on June 15,2005, it was determined that the Los Angeles Turf Club had complied
with COO No, 99-110, (Id.)ln addition, it was noted that "no significant violations were found in the compliance
history of the existing permit and COO No, 99-110 is proposed to be rescinded," No numeric criteria (either
technology-based or water-quality-based) for stormwater effluent limit goals (ELGs) have been identified or
incorporated in the NPDES and all dry-weather discharges from production areas (e,g" stable area, fountains)
have been eliminated (through diversion to the sanitary sewer system), Consequently, although Appendix G2
(Pollutant Concentrations in Santa Anita Park Stormwater From 2001 through 2005) of the new Draft EIR
indicates elevated levels of certain constituents in stonnwater runoff from the Racetrack facilities, these are not in
violation of any permit or water quality criteria/limit. (Id,)
As a Large CAFO, permit conditions also include implementation of a Nutrient Management Plan and
annual monitoring and reporting requirements, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-35,) Because liquid or solid manure is not
land-applied (i,e" not used as fertilizer), the RWQCB has determined that a Manure Management Plan fulfills the
requirements for a nutrient management plan, The NPDES (and Large CAFO designation) permit also requires
the discharger to comply with requirements of the SWRCB General NPDES Permit CASOOOOOl and Waste
Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stonn Water Associated with Industrial Activities (Order 97-03-
DWQ), including development of a SWPPP and a Stormwater Monitoring Plan, The Santa Anita Park Racetrack
has developed and implemented a Manure Management Plan, SWPPP, and Stonnwater Monitoring Plan, (/d.)
On November 9, 2006, the RWQCB approved the tentative permit for continued operations of the Santa
Anita Park Racetrack facilities, This permit incorporates stormwater discharge effluent limits and monitoring for
nonproduction areas (e,g" infield and fountain areas), ambient conditions monitoring within the Arcadia Wash
itself, and priority pollutants monitoring, including metals and pesticides, The renewed permit conditions include
limitations and more stringent monitoring than the prior permit. (Final EIR at p, 4-53,)
With respect to WDRs, if the proposed Project would exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment
facility, it is possible that the proposed Project would also violate the treatment facility's WDRs; however, the
proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of the available treatment facility's capacity, Therefore, no
impact would occur, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: For the reasons discussed in the water quality finding immediately below in this
Section I1.G, none of the AEA Modifications would result in a new significant environmental impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, compared to project conditions analyzed in the
new Draft EIR, with respect to construction or operational stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or
water quality, and impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR,
Cumulative Impacts: With regard to construction impacts, over 41 percent of the Rio Hondo Watershed
is occupied by the Angeles National Forest and privately owned lands that are adjacent to the forest (SGVCOG
2004), (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-64,) The second largest existing land use is low density residential, which
encompasses about 33 percent of the watershed (SGVCOG 2004), The developable portions of the watershed are
largely considered built out, with few opportunities for new development (SGVCOG 2004), However,
redevelopment of existing land uses (e,g" conversion of residential to commercial development) is likely,
particularly in developed areas, Redevelopment, along with new development, could occur within the watershed
resulting in increased discharges (both point and nonpoint source) to receiving waters, Because the Rio Hondo
watershed is already listed as impaired with respect to several constituents resulting from both point and nonpoint
48
sources, and because redevelopment is likely to occur with increased discharges, the cumulative construction
impact would be significant. However, the proposed Project would comply with all prevailing laws and
regulations, and future laws and regulations with respect to TMDLs, as they are further developed and enforced,
and thus the contribution of the proposed Project to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable and
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
The proposed Project has one facility with an individual NPDES permit, the Santa Anita Park Racetrack,
which regulates the discharge of wastewater and stonnwater to the Arcadia Wash, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-78,) In
order to remain in operation, the Racetrack would need to comply with all permit requirements, including the
existing NDPES permit effluent limits, discharge conditions, and prohibited discharges, On November 9, 2006,
the R WQCB approved an application for renewal of the existing permit. The permit acknowledges existing
discharge conditions, eliminated conditions no longer applicable, and includes additional monitoring requirements
for wastewater, stormwater, and ambient conditions, The permit could reduce potential discharge impacts on the
Arcadia Wash as compared to the quality of discharge that occurs under the existing permit, This permit is just
one of many site-specific NPDES permits for facilities that operate within the Rio Hondo Watershed, (Id,)
Because there is an existing regulatory structure in place that requires discretionary approval by the SWRCB or
the RWQCB (through the NPDES permitting process) of any project's operating characteristics that could affect
water quality, cumulative operational impacts in the watershed would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at
p, 4,7-65,) Furthermore, the proposed Project would implement stonnwater quality BMPs to prevent degradation
of receiving waters during both construction and operation of the proposed Project, as required by its NPDES
permits and, therefore, the contribution of tbe proposed Project to cumulative construction and operation impacts
would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-35; Final EIR
AEA at pp, 22-23, Impact 4,7-3)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially degrade water quality,
Explanation: Some of the remaining open portions of the West Branch would be covered to support development
of proposed Project features, The East Branch of the Arcadia Wash is already completely covered through the
proposed Project site and would not be impacted by the proposed Project. The West Branch is already covered in
many sections within and adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, including a 1,500-foot section by the stables and a
600-foot section by the medical office building (off site), (Id,) The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash, is an open,
concrete-lined drainage channel for a 1,200-linear-foot portion of its path that currently bisects the Specific Plan
Area, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-35-36,) (However a nationwide Section 404 permit may be required for the storm
drain, (Final EIR at p, 4-59,))
Covering of the channel might also be subject to the review of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and would
be subject to the review of the lACDPW, the latter of which is the entity that maintains the channel. (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,7-36,) However, according to e-mail correspondence received from the USACE on August 22, 2006
(Hall 2006), "As long as all work is performed outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), and all
equipment and staging will take place outside of waters, the Project, as proposed, is not a Corps regulated activity
and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit (Section 404 Permit) will not be required, However, should
construction methods change and access to the channel be required for equipment, etc" a Corps permit (NWP#
33) would be required," No structures would be placed within the channel or on the channel banks, and the
structure and integrity of the channel would not be impacted; further, no dredge or fill operations will occur, (Id.
at p, 4,7-35-36,)
Because a Section 404 Pennit is not anticipated to be required, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water
Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) would also not be required for the proposed Project. However, if
it is determined that a Section 404 Permit is required due to a change in construction methods, both a Section 404
Permit and a Section 40 I Certification would be required, and the Developer would need to comply with all
permit/certification requirements, (Id,; see also discussion in Section 4,3 (Biological Resources) of the new Draft
EIR,)
49
The Arcadia Wash would still be covered for 1,200 feet through the Project Site, as evaluated in the new
Draft EIR, but no habitable structures would be placed on the covered Wash, (Final EIR AEA, at p, 1.) Figure 3-
9A of the new Draft EIR identified several pedestrian crossings of the Wash, and these access points would
continue to be provided, but with an additional crossing (and a pedestrian courtyard) located where the lobby of
the cinema/theater building was formerly proposed, (ld, at pp, 1-2,) While vehicles may also cross the Wash for
emergency access and/or maintenance activities in the area of the former cinema/theater lobby and throughout the
Project Site, the primary use of the covered Wash would be for pedestrian movement. (ld. at p, 2,) Where the
drainage channel would run under paved areas, drives, or landscaped areas, a new structure would span across the
width of the channel. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-36,) This structure spanning and covering the channel would not
cause the channel walls to directly bear the weight of the covering structure, Further, the cover would be built
with adequate clearance from the channel walls, Access to the covered portions of the channel would be provided
through manholes at 500-foot intervals at a minimum, as required by the Los Angeles County Flood Control
District, and from uncovered sections of the channel north of the round barn to provide easy access for cleaning
out the channel. Uncovered sections of the channel north of the round barn would allow access for larger
equipment and maintenance operations, (Jd,)
With respect to litter and debris, creation of the channel cover would not place any structures within the
channel or otherwise impede flows that could cause litter and debris to dam or clog the flood channel. If litter or
debris is present wi\hin the channel, proper access provides adequate opportunities for regular maintenance, (Jd,)
Furthennore, the cover itself would reduce or eliminate the potential for trash and debris to be deposited directly
into the channel by visitors to the Project Site, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-36-37,) Therefore, there would be no
impact to water quality because of trapped debris, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-37.)
The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash would be considered to have the same designated beneficial uses
as listed for the entire Arcadia Wash, However, the Arcadia Wash, itself, has only a few potential beneficial uses
and two intermittent uses, Potential beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, water contact
recreation, warm freshwater habitat, and wildlife habitat. Intermittent uses include noncontact recreation (where
the wash is not channelized) and groundwater recharge, (ld,)
Although the Arcadia Wash is designated within the Basin Plan for potential beneficial uses, including
contact recreation (except in concrete-channelized areas), warm freshwater aquatic life support, and wildlife
habitat, and for intermittent noncontact recreation and groundwater recharge beneficial uses, the existing cover
and channelization of the Wash, including the entire 1,500-foot section of the West Branch that passes through the
stable area of the Specific Plan Area, currently limits the degree to which the potential beneficial uses within the
West Branch of the Arcadia Wash and the main stem of the Arcadia Wash can be achieved, The East Branch
Arcadia Wash is completely covered within the Specific Plan Area, which would not change with implementation
of the proposed Project and also limits the support of potential beneficial uses in this branch, (ld,)
Given the extent of coverage and channelization already existing within the Arcadia Wash near and
within the Specific Plan Area, covering about 1,200 more feet of channel is not likely to contribute significantly
to the prevention of potential beneficial use attainment. Despite the work of the Amigos de los Rios organization,
there is no evidence that potential beneficial uses could be realized under the existing covered and channelized
conditions, Covering an additional 1,200 feet of channel as a result of the proposed Project would have no impact
on recreation or wildlife beneficial uses, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-37-38,) (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-38,) While the
channel is not considered to be riparian habitat or a sensitive natural community, the limited stands of riparian
vegetation that have become temporarily established within the channel could nonetheless be regulated by CDFG,
The Developer would be required to prepare and submit a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration form (FG
2023), CDFG will recommend whether a Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq, of the
Fish and Game Code would be required, Therefore, with implementation of PR 4,3A, no impacts to any limited
vegetation that could become established in the channel between the County's periods of maintenance activities
would occur in association with implementation of the proposed Project. (ld,)
50
AEA Modifications: Neither the change in size nor the change in location of the structures under the AEA
Modifications affects site drainage patterns because the site is currently developed primarily with impervious
surfaces and would be developed in a simiiar manner, although more pervious (i,e" landscaping) surfaces would
be provided that would actually reduce runoff rates and volumes, However, runoff rates and volumes (and any
associated possibility for increased erosion or flooding, either on or off site, or groundwater recharge
opportunities) would not vary between project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR and the proposed
Project with the AEA Modifications because a similar amount of pervious and impervious surfaces would be
provided, A similar volume, flow, and constituents of storm water runoff would enter the Wash at the southern end
of the project site, near where the Arcadia Wash would become open (see Draft EIR at Figure 4,7-4, p, 4,7-30),
See discussion at Section II.C above regarding moving of habitable structures away from Arcadia Wash, This
modification would not affect water quality, and flow levels and capacity would remain the same, Also, as
indicated by Appendix C, the U,S, Army Corps of Engineers has determined that "the overbuilding of the Arcadia
Wash does not discharge dredged or fill material into a water of the United States or an adjacent wetland,
Therefore, the overbuilding activity is not subject to our regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
a S,ection 404 permit is not required from our office," Therefore, none of the AEA Modifications would result in a
new significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact,
compared to project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, with respect to construction or operational
stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, Impacts would be the same as under the
project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR (Final EIR AEA at pp, 23-24,)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off site? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-38, Impact 4,7-4)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site. (Id, at p, 4,7-39; Final EIR AEA at 23-24,)
Explanation: Post-construction drainage patterns in the Specific Plan Area would not be substantially altered as
the site would continue to drain from north to south and southeast to the existing West Branch of the Arcadia
Wash, (Id, at p, 4,7-38,) In addition, the Specific Plan Area would maintain pervious and impervious surfaces near
existing levels such that stonnflow rates would not be increased, (See Draft EIR at App, G 1.) However, the CE
zone would increase pervious area by replacing asphalt with turf block in Parking Area C, along with other
limited areas of landscaping, (Id,) With respect to runoff volumes, the proposed Project would reduce runoff from
an entire 50-year storm event from about 156 acre-feet to 146 acre-feet, and from about 137 acre-feet to 129 acre-
feet from the entire 25-year storm event. The reduction in stormwater runoff volumes indicates that existing
conditions would not be changed by the proposed Project, and the reduced amount of runoff would not result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off site, (Id,) Conversion of the existing south parking lot to the proposed
commercial development would increase the amount of pervious surfaces, which, could increase erosion or
siltation on- or off- site, (Id,) However, these areas would be landscaped, which would prevent or reduce
substantial erosion or siltation on site and off site, (ld, at p 4,7-38-39,) In addition, approximately 3,5 acres would
be a new, constructed water feature, (Id, at p, 4.7-39,) This water feature would be lined with an impervious
material and the water level would be maintained by the domestic water system, The site would be designed to
direct surface stormwater flows away from the water feature, so that only direct precipitation would enter.
Consequently, only a minor amount of freeboard for the water surface would be required to accommodate rainfall,
This new water feature would not alter drainage patterns that would result in substantial erosion on site or off site,
(Id,) In addition, peak runoff rates from the CE zone would be reduced from 254 cfs to 239 cfs for the 50-year
storm, and from 223 cfs to 204 cfs for the 25-year storm (see Draft EIR at App, G I for details), Reduced flow
rates and volumes from the CE zone are likely to reduce the potential for erosion and siltation, both on and off
5t
site, Additionally, the West Branch of the Arcadia Channel is concrete lined and not susceptible to bank or bed
erosion, (Id,) Development of the Simulcast Center would occur within the existing and developed Grandstand
area, and, consequently, there would be no change in impervious surfaces and runoff characteristics, Further,
development of the associated infrastructure would replace or modify existing infrastructure, Consequently,
runoff volumes and rates would remain the same in this area, (Id,) Therefore, there would be no impact associated
with post-construction changes to drainage patterns that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or
off site, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed further in the finding above regarding water quality impacts, neither
the change in size nor the change in location of the structures under the AEA Modifications affects site drainage
patterns because the site is currently developed primarily with impervious surfaces and would be developed in a
similar manner, although more pervious (i,e" landscaping) surfaces would be provided that would actually reduce
runoff rates and volumes, The AEA Modifications would not result in new significant environmental impact or a
substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with respect to construction or operational
stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, Under either the proposed Project with the
AEA Modifications or the project elements evaluated in the new Draft EIR without the AEA Modifications, a
similar volume, flow, and constituents of stormwater runoff would enter the Wash at the southern end of the
project site, near where the Arcadia Wash would become open, and impacts would be the same, (Final EIR AEA
at p, 24,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on or off site? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-40,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site, (Id, ; Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Explanation: Runoff properties for most of the Specific Plan Area, including the Santa Anita Park Racetrack,
stables, north parking lot, and other Racetrack facilities, would not be significantly altered compared to existing
conditions, and, where altered, runoff volumes would be decreased slightly, (Id,)
A flood control channel (the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash) crosses the middle of the site and another
(the East Branch of the Arcadia Wash) crosses underground through a small portion of the eastern edge of the
site, None of these drainages would be altered by the proposed development. However, the remaining open
portions of the West Branch would be covered to support development of proposed Project features, The channel
cover would not have any impact on the hydraulic capacity of the channel, which would continue to accommodate
a 200-year storm event. Maintenance of the channel would be accommodated by the inclusion of access manholes
at SOO-foot intervals, and from uncovered sections of the channel north of the Round Barn to provide access for
maintenance activities, (Id,)
Covering of the channel could be subject to the review of the USACE and would be subject to the review
of the LACDPW, the latter of which is the entity that maintains the channel. However, according to e-mail
correspondence received from the USACE on August 22, 2006 (Hall 2006), "As long as all work is performed
outside of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), and all equipment and staging will take place outside of
waters, the Project, as proposed, is not a Corps regulated activity and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit
(Section 404 Permit) will not be required, However, should construction methods change and access to the
channel be required for equipment, etc" a Corps permit (NWP# 33) would be required," Collector storm drains
would be designed according to County and City standards to convey storm flows, The proposed Project would
also be designed to direct runoff away from the water feature and only a minor amount of freeboard would be
52
necessary to contain the direct storm event precipitation, thereby eliminating the risk of flooding, No structures
would be placed within the channel or on the channel banks, and the structure and integrity of the channel would
not be impacted; further, no dredge or fill operations would occur. (Jd.)
The Project Site is not located within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA. (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,7-43,) Furthermore, no IOO-year flood base elevation has been established for the West or East Branches of
the Arcadia Wash, nor have any standards for determination of the IOO-year flood base been developed, which
essentially means that the site is not subject to flooding, and no quantifiable flooding information is available, The
channel was designed for 200-year storm event conveyance capacity, Furthermore, post-project runoff rates and
flows would be the same as or less than pre-project runoff rates and flows, as previously described, Therefore,
there would be no impact to changes in hydrology that would contribute to flooding on site or off site, (Jd,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed further above, the AEA Modifications would not result in new
significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with respect
to construction or operational stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, compared to
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be the same as under the project elements analyzed in
the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,7-43,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, (Id,;
Final ElR AEA at p, 24,)
Explanation: Post-project runoff rates and flows would be the same as or less than pre-project runoff rates and
flows, The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash, which would receive project site flows, was designed to convey a
200-year stonn event. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of the existing drainage
systems, since they are currently adequate to convey project site runoff. Furthermore, the existing on-site private
drainage system is adequate to convey stormwater runoff and would not be altered, except in the CE zone, In the
CE zone, additional storm drains and laterals would be constructed, as described by Figure 4,7-4 (Proposed
Stormwater Drainage Plan) of the new Draft EIR, and designed according to the City's Municipal Code to
adequately convey post-project storm flows, (Final EIR p, 4-61, Final EIR AEA pp, 23, 24)
AEA Modifications: As discussed further above, the AEA Modifications would not result in new
significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with respect
to construction or operational stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, compared to
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, The AEA Modifications would not affect water quality, and flow levels
and capacity would remain the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts
would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, (Final ElR AEA at p, 24,)
Cumulative Impacts, As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-
43,)
53
Finding: The proposed Project would not place housing within a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, (ld,)
Explanation: The project site is not located in a lOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA, Furthermore,
no residential uses are included in the CE zone so there would be no housing placed within a IOO-year flood
hazard area, However, a small portion of the Project Site (approximately 1.8 acres) is located within the Morris S,
Jones Reservoir Inundation Area, This area is located in the central and western portion of the Project Site, and is
currently developed with horse barns and temporary accommodations for grooms during the racing season, Land
uses in this area would not be altered with implementation of the proposed Project (that is, neither the horse barns
nor the temporary accommodations would be significantly altered, nor would new structures be developed in this
area), Consequently, no housing would be placed in a flood hazard area, and no impact would occur, (ld,)
Impact: Would the Project place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect
flood flows? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-44,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not place within a IOO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede
or redirect flood flows, (ld.)
Explanation: The project sile is not located in a IOO-year flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA, Therefore,
implementation of the proposed Project would not place structures in a IOO-year flood hazard area such that flood
flows would be impeded or redirected, The channel cover would be constructed of a concrete decking system
supported by a series of concrete caissons and grade beams, The channel cover would span the channel and would
be designed to have no impact on the structural integrity of the channel walls, The structure covering the channel
would not cause the channel walls to directly bear the weight of the channel covering, Further, the cover would be
built with adequate clearance from the channel walls, The channel cover would not have an impact on the
hydraulic capacity of the channel, as the channel was designed to accommodate a 200-year storm event and no
structures would be placed within the channel itself, (ld,)
Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-44,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, (Id,)
Explanation: Portions of the City are located within the flood hazard area (or inundation area) of four separate
dams, A small portion of the Project Site (about 1,8 acres) is located within the Morris S, Jones Reservoir
Inundation Area, This area is currently developed with horse barns and temporary accommodations for grooms
during the racing season, and land uses in this area would not be altered with implementation of the proposed
Project. The project site is not within the flood hazard or inundation area of any of the three remaining dams,
Consequently, structures, horses, or personnel would not be subject to greater risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding as the result of the failure of a dam with implementation of the proposed Project as compared
to existing conditions, (ld,)
Impact: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-45,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, (ld,)
Explanation: The proposed Project would not expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving inundation by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow because the Project Site is not located near a coastal area,
large water body, or unstable and exposed hills or slopes, (ld,) The closest enclosed bodies of water that could
result in earthquake-induced seiches are the Santa Anita Dam, which is located approximately five miles from the
Project Site, and the Sierra Madre Dam, which is located approximately four miles from the Project Site, The
Morris S, Jones Reservoir is located approximately 10 miles from the Project Site, The project site is not located
within a flood hazard area associated with dam inundation of the Santa Anita Dam or the Sierra Madre Dam,
54
Therefore, if failure of the dam would not result in flooding, overflow as the result of a seiche would also not
expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, (Id,) The
site is not located within the boundary of mapped inundation areas due to tsunamis or seiches in the event of an
earthquake according to the County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazard Map, which is included in the
County of Los Angeles Safety Element. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-46,) Therefore, no impact associated with
seiches is anticipated to occur, (Id,) The nearest foothills with exposed soils are located approximately three miles
north and northeast of the Project Site; however, the area between the undeveloped foothills and the Project Site is
entirely developed and mudflows, if any resulted from periods of intense rain, would not likely reach the Project
Site, Also, mudflows have never been recorded in the downtown area of Arcadia in the vicinity of the Racetrack,
Therefore, no impact associated with mudflows is anticipated to occur (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level (e,g" the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (new
Draft EIR at pp, 4,7-59, 65, Impact 4,7-2,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e,g" the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted), (Id,; see also Final EIR at p,
23,)
Explanation: Implementation of the project would result in increased water demands within the City of Arcadia,
but would not result in substantial depletion of groundwater supplies and would not substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge, This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Because the proposed Project would be
served by the City, water from the Raymond and Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basins would largely be used for
water supply, (new Draft ElR at p, 4,7-59,) Both the Raymond and the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basins are
adjudicated basins, managed according to a court decree by a Watermaster. In the Raymond Groundwater Basin,
the water adjudication judgment specifically states the quantitative amounts that each rightholder may extract
from the Basin, based upon the long-term average yield of the Basin, such that pumping in these quantities would
not result in the depletion of groundwater resources, In addition, the implementation of the water adjudication
judgment is monitored by the Raymond Basin Management Board, which serves as the Watermaster for the
Basin, In the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin, its Watermaster determines, based on hydrology and other
factors, what the Safe Operable Yield will be for the year (Le" the amount of water that may be pumped from the
Basin that would not result in a long-term decline in groundwater resources), While pumping in amounts in
excess of the Safe Operable Yield is permitted, this is subject to the requirement of purchasing an equal amount of
replacement water for recharge into the Basin during wet years, thereby ensuring that the long-term health of the
Basin is steady, The proposed Project impacts on water supply from these basins are discussed in Section 4,14
(Utilities and Service Systems) of the new Draft EIR and include potential impacts of consumptive use for the
proposed water feature, (Id,)
Further, as previously discussed, the Project Site is currently not used for groundwater recharge activities
as the Specific Plan Area is developed with primarily impervious surfaces, The only pervious surfaces are the
relatively limited landscaping and portions of the track's infield area, Under existing conditions, there is little, if
any, potential for natural groundwater recharge to occur, and there is no facilitated groundwater recharge, Under
the proposed Project, impervious surface characteristics in the Specific Plan Area would not substantially change
(i,e" in some areas it will increase, in some it will be reduced, and in some it will not change) and no facilitated
groundwater recharge facilities are planned, Installation of the water feature would not affect groundwater
recharge since the bottom of the water feature would be lined with an impervious material, which would further
limit the establishment of vegetation and prevent leakage to the soil beneath, which could cause a change in
groundwater levels depending on the extent and nature of the leak, Existing areas of pervious surfaces that are not
being modified would remain and potential recharge would not be changed, Improvement of existing impervious
55
areas to more pervious conditions (e,g" Racetrack overflow parking in proposed Parking Area C) would not
greatly alter surface hydrology (Hydrology Technical Report, 2005), and reconfiguration of existing land uses
outside of the CE zone would not significantly alter infiltration or groundwater recharge, Consequently, the
proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact to groundwater supplies or recharge, (Id,)
Cumulative Imoacts: The groundwater basins (aquifers) relevant to the cumulative impact analysis of the
proposed Project include the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Raymond Basin, (new Draft E1R at p, 4,7-65,) As
discussed previously with reference to project specific groundwater impacts, these groundwater basins are
adjudicated basins; and, watcr rights to each of the basins have been established by court orders, which are then
managed by Watermasters, Continued growth within the limits of the Raymond and San Gabriel Basins would
create additional demands for water, While cumulative growth may result in additional water demands, the
management of the basins by the Watermasters, pursuant to the water adjudication judgments, would ensure that
water production practices result in long-term stability in underground water resources, Consequently, it is
expected that cumulative impacts with regard to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies would be less
than significant. In addition, the Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable, as the Project Site
is not used for groundwater recharge, and the impervious surface characteristics in the Specific Plan Area would
not be altered by the proposed Project. This impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
With regard to any cumulative impacts on groundwater recharge, the bulk of the developable area
overlying the Raymond and San Gabriel Groundwater Basins is currently built out with urban development.
Therefore, while future cumulative growth may result in additional undeveloped (and therefore potentially
penneable) areas of ground being converted to urban, impermeable surfaces, the relative magnitude of this
conversion with respect to the entire area overlying the two basins is small. Additionally, the water adjudication
judgments emphasize moderating water production from the basins such that there is a balance between the
amount extracted in a year and the amount recharged through percolation, As a result, cumulative growth is not
expected to result in a substantial depletion in groundwater supplies, due to interference with water recharge, As a
result, this cumulative impact would be less than significant. In addition, the Project's contribution would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant because the Project Site is not a source of
groundwater recharge, (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(new Draft EIR at pp, 4,7-60, 66, Impact 4,7-3,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at p,
24,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would cover portions of the West Branch of the Arcadia
Wash, but would not result in a substantial alteration of water quality, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-60,) This is
considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id,; Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Some of the remaining open portions of the West Branch would be covered to support development of
proposed Project features, The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash, which is an open, concrete-lined drainage
channel for a 1,200-linear-foot portion of its path that currently bisects the Specific Plan Area, would be covered,
which would limit beneficial uses to flood control. Covering portions of the channel could possibly alter water
quality conditions, However, the existing channel is a concrete-lined flood control channel with unknown (I.e" it
has never been monitored) existing water quality and, as a concrete-lined channel that is also covered in many
sections, natural biological processes are already limited and would likely not be further limited by covering
another 1,200 feet, Covering this 1,200-foot section of the Arcadia Wash could also help reduce the amount of
pollutants deposited directly into the water from the atmosphere as well as bacteria from wildlife droppings, trash,
and litter. A reduced amount of these types of pollutants could result in beneficial impacts, Other changes could
include reduced photochemical processes (e,g" no light) and oxygen/gas exchange processes (e,g" less aeration),
which could possibly reduce dissolved oxygen levels and change pH and other water quality conditions that may
or may not have an adverse impact on water quality, There are many contributing factors (e,g" type and amount
of organic material in the water, type and amount of pollutants and nutrients in water, climate, stream flow,
56
amount of time exposed to potentially adverse conditions, upstream water quality, and others) that would
detennine whether or not any alteration in water chemistry caused by covering the 1,200 additional feet of the
Wash would have a resultant adverse impact on water quality, However, the potential for changes in water
quality, in particular, adverse changes in water quality, are likely to be minimal or offset by beneficial impacts
(e,g" reduced trash potential), Covering the Arcadia Wash would not change the capacity of the Arcadia Wash as
the structure itself would not be altered, (Id,)
Any potential impacts would likely be most significant during dry-weather flows because during low-
flow conditions it would take the water the longest time to travel through the covered area and thereby experience
the longest exposure to altered conditions, Flow measurement records for the Arcadia Wash system are limited for
the main stem at Grand A venue, but the minimum dry season mean monthly flow was about 1.38 cubic feet per
second, Assuming a conservative estimate of one- fifth of the main stem flow coming from the West Branch of the
Arcadia Wash (based on relative length of the main stem and the approximate distance through the covered
portion), and a channel width of about 25 feet, the flow velocity through the Specific Plan Area would likely be
about 0,131 feet per second, which would take less than 3 hours for water to flow through the newly covered
section during dry-weather flow season (critical conditions), (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,7-73-66,) Therefore, even
though there may be some water chemistry changes because of the additional channel covering, the amount of
time for water to be exposed to altered conditions is likely to be limited (less than 3 hours) and not much more
than under existing conditions because large portions of the channels are already covered, Therefore potential
water chemistry impacts would be less-than-significant. No mitigation is required, (Jd,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed further above, none of the AEA Modifications would result in a new
significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with respect
to construction or operational stonnwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, compared to
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in
the new Draft EIR, (Final ElR AEA at p, 24,)
Cumulative Impacts: Continued monitoring under state and local monitoring programs (for compliance
with the CW A and state programs) would be expected to identify new or continued degradation of water quality
and potential causes contributing to impainnent. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-66,) As water quality degradation and
causes are identified, appropriate measures would be developed and adjustments to stonnwater management plans
would be made, While these measures are designed to reduce water quality impacts, implementation, monitoring,
and enforcement is within the responsibility of other agencies, Therefore, on a cumulative basis, the new or
continued degradation of water quality could occur as enforcement is within the responsibility of others, and the
cumulative impact would be considered significant. However, the proposed Project's contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project would not result in a substantial increase in
the rate or amount of pollutants in stonnwater, and, as discussed below in Section litE, the proposed Project
includes preparation of a SWPPP to address construction-related water quality impacts and a SUSMp to address
operational water quality impacts, all of which are within the responsibility of the Developer as required by
pR 4,7A, pR 4,7B, pR 4,7C, pR 4,7D and MM 4,7-I(a) and MM 4,7-I(b), Therefore, the cumulative project-
related impact would be less than significant. Final EIR pp, 4-61 - 4-64, 4-403 - 4-405, 4-603 - 4-604; Final ElR
AEA p, 24,)
Although there is a feasibility study being conducted for restoration of a section of the Arcadia Wash
down stream of the Specific Plan Area, and now including the Specific Plan Area, there is still no existing or
proposed restoration plan for this area of the Arcadia Wash system that might be affected by the proposed
covering of an additional 1,200 feet of this channel. Thus, the cumulative impact is less than significant.
Furthennore, no additional projects have been identified that propose to increase coverage of the West Branch
Arcadia Wash, Without finalization of the feasibility study or a proposed restoration plan, it cannot be assumed
that covering an additional 1,200 feet of the West Branch Arcadia Wash would be cumulatively considerable,
Therefore, the cumulative project-related impact would also be less than significant. (Jd,)
57
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,7-61,66,80, Impact 4,7-4,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation on or off site, (Id,; Final EIR AEA at pp, 23, 24,)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage patterns of
the site or area or result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site during construction activities, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4,7-61.) Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would
remain less than significant. During construction of all features of the proposed Project, grading would alter
surface drainage characteristics that may increase erosion and sediment transport, The NPDES General
Construction Permit requires preparation of a SWPPP with construction BMPs that prevent erosion and sediment
transport for projects that cumulatively disturb more than one-acre, as required by PR 4,7 A, Therefore,
construction of all on site and off site improvements, development, grading activities, realignments, and other
project features would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit. In addition,
compliance with PR 4,7 A would ensure that potential construction-related erosion and siltation impacts associated
with temporary alteration of drainage patterns would remain less than significant. (Id,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed further above, none of the AEA Modifications would result in a new
significant environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact with respect
to construction or operational stormwater runoff rates or flow, drainage, erosion, or water quality, compared to
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in
the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 24,)
Cumulative Imoacts, During construction of cumulative development in the City, grading would alter
surface drainage characteristics that may increase erosion and sediment transport, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,7-66,)
All construction would be regulated by the NPDES General Construction Permit which requires preparation of a
SWPPP with construction BMPs that prevent erosion and sediment transport for projects that cumulatively disturb
more than one-acre, Cumulative construction would be required to comply with the NPDES General Construction
Permit. Therefore, on a cumulative basis, the grading associated with cumulative development in the City would
be considered less than significant. Further, the proposed Project's contribution to this impact would not be
cumulatively considerable because the proposed Project includes compliance with both the Small LUP General
Permit and the City's SUSMP. Therefore, the cumulative project-related impact would be less than significant.
(Id,)
H. Land Use and Planning
Impact: Would the proposed Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,8-9,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, (Id,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is not within the jurisdiction of any habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, Therefore, there is no impact associated with conflicts with applicable habitat
conservation plans or natural community conservation plans, (Id,)
Impact: Would the proposed Project physically divide an established community? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,8-9,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community, (Id,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is currently surrounded by a mix of land uses, which include residential.
commercial, and institutional land uses, The Specific Plan Area is currently developed as a horse racing facility,
The northern, eastern, and southern portions of the Specific Plan Area are developed as surface parking lots, The
58
Racetrack oval and associated facilities are generally located in the central portion of the Specific Plan Area, The
Specific Plan Area is bounded to the north by the "College Tract" residential neighborhood, To the northwest is
the Los Angeles Arboretum; and to the northeast are various restaurant and hotel uses, the Thoroughbred
Breeder's Association, single-family residential homes, and Santa Anita Church and Barnhart School. Westfield
Santa Anita and multi-family residential uses are located west of the Specific Plan Area along North Baldwin
A venue, To the east of Huntington A venue are the Arcadia City Hall and Police Headquarters, the Civic Center
Athletic Field, the Arcadia County Park and the Santa Anita Golf Course, To the south of the Specific Plan Area
are multi-family residential uses, a convalescent home, Holy Angels Church and school, and to the southeast are
the Methodist Hospital, associated medical offices, the Arcadia Historical Museum, the Chamber of Commerce,
and the Community Center, While the residential neighborhoods located to the west and south of the site are
established communities, development of the proposed Project would not divide these existing communities, The
surrounding communities are already divided and separated from each other and from the proposed Project by
existing development: the Racetrack facilities, Westfield Santa Anita, and Huntington Drive and Baldwin
Avenue, (ld,) The proposed Project would not contlict with the predominant uses present in the surrounding areas,
and would provide a development with amenities that would allow it to blend in with the surrounding community
through the use of architectural features (e,g" scale, massing) and landscaping, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,8-11.)
Therefore, there would be no impact on division of an established community as a result of the proposed Project.
(ld,)
The fact that one of the approvals for the Project is a Development Agreement would not have the potential to
impact the environment. The proposed Development Agreement does not have any environmental impacts in
addition to or different from the impacts of the Project as a whole, all of which were analyzed in the Final EIR,
Although the Development Agreement makes provision for a possible site for a well, there is no commitment to
the groundwater extraction well with respect to date of installation, specific size, funding, or the need for the well.
(Final EIR AEA at p, 32), In addition, there is no significant impact with respect to residential development in the
northern parking lot and there is no significant impact associated with the vesting of development rights, waiver
of City of Arcadia powers or with the City's Reserved Powers, As described on page on p, 4-441 of the Final EIR,
"..,the development agreement would not have the potential to impact the environment."
Impact: Would the economic impacts of the proposed Project either individually or cumulatively result in urban
decay or urban blight (i,e" significant physical changes in the environment)? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,8-123, 129,
Impact 4,8-2,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in urban decay or urban blight (i,e" significant physical changes
in the environment), (ld.; see alsa Final EIR AEA at p, 25, Impact 4.8-2)
Explanation: The economic impacts of the proposed Project would not result in urban blight or urban decay,
(new Draft EIR at p, 4,8-123,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. In order to analyze whether the
Project could result in a significant indirect environmental impact of urban decay, or deterioration in the City, a
market analysis was prepared by Speer Consulting LLC in July 2006 (Appendix N of the new Draft EIR) to assess
the existing retail commercial market in relation to the proposed The Shops at Santa Anita Park, including
potential impacts on local retailers, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,8-145-124,) This study considers the primary trade
area for the proposed Project based on the location of the Project and other retail commercial areas and shopping
centers and the population and income characteristics of the area, (Id,)
The retail/commercial uses of the proposed Project would serve a diverse trade area from a
socioeconomic perspective, No single community accounts for more than 20 percent of trade area residents, The
bulk (almost one-quarter) of higher-income ($75,000+) households are concentrated in nearby Pasadena, but the
most affluent trade area residents are found in La CanadalFlintridge and San Marino, According to Claritas, Inc"
one of the nation's largest vendors of demographic data, the zip codes within the defined trade area expected to
experience the most rapid growth over the next 5 years are in Pasadena and Temple City, It should also be noted
that trade area residents' average household incomes are more than 10 percent higher than regional averages, and
Arcadia residents enjoy incomes 25 percent higher than regional averages, Trade area residents are better
59
educated, more inclined to be employed in white-collar jobs, and have a higher propensity for home ownership
than the regional average, According to the National Research Bureau, publisher of the Shopping Center
Directory, the defined primary trade area now has a per capita inventory of shopping center space that is
10 percent below regional averages and 30 percent below the corresponding figure for the state of California, This
suggests there is ample room for additional retail development within the trade area, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,8-
124,) In fact, if the leasable area from both the proposed development and the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion
are included, the primary trade area figure would be 12,7 sf per capita, virtually at parity with the present Los
Angeles area regional nonn (Speer 2006), (ld,)
A total of nine existing or planned department store-anchored centers, offering a total of 7 million sf of
retail space, would compete with the proposed Project for primary trade area expenditures, Only four properties
within 10 miles offer more than 500,000 sf, large enough to be considered major retail concentrations,
Descriptions of each of the major retail centers are included in the Speer Retail Market Analysis in Appendix N of
the new Draft EIR, Westfield Santa Anita, located immediately adjacent to the proposed development, would be
the closest significant major retail competitor. The market analysis notes that Westfield Santa Anita's stores target
a different clientele from those anticipated for the proposed Project, and the two centers are expected to
complement rather than directly compete with each other and increase the draw for area shoppers, The Glendale
Galleria, Americana on Brand, Westfield West Covina and Eastland, MontebeIlo Town Center, Paseo
Colorado/Old Pasadena/Shops on South Lake, and Eagle Rock mall would be the other major competitors to the
proposed Project in the primary trade area, Total sales from the proposed Project are projected at $332 million in
2009, increasing to approximately $359 million by 2011. It is anticipated that the proposed Project's retail
component would capture 5 to 6 percent of future retail commercial spending (non-automotive) within the
primary trade area; 30 percent of project sales would come from beyond the defined primary trade area, The retail
component would absorb about 35 percent of the net excess demand within the trade area in 2009 (opening year),
declining to about 24 percent of net excess demand in 201 I, according to the market analysis, (Id,)
The current and projected growth of retail commercial expenditures would support the amount of retail
commercial uses proposed as part of the Project. An analysis of the sales impact that resulted from Westfield
Santa Anita's Nordstrom wing expansion in \ 994 and the opening of The Grove at Farmers Market in 2002
suggests that the addition of new retail into an area can result in an enhancement of its regional draw, often
increasing local sales outside the new development due to a recapture of expenditures previously leaking from the
community, As such, on a best-case basis, local retailers would not feel a negative sales impact as a result of the
opening of The Shops at Santa Anita Park and the surrounding area could experience a net improvement in
overall sales levels, The Project's in-line retailers should derive a minimum of 70 percent of their initial sales
from projected growth in demand within the primary trade area and the recapture of expenditures now leaking
from the trade area, In fact, based on sales data from the California Board of Equalization for the period following
the August 1994 Nordstrom's expansion and 50,000 sf addition of new shop space at Westfield Santa Anita, retail
sales tax receipts for Arcadia retailers located outside Westfield Santa Anita increased 7 percent. (new Draft EIR
at pp, 4,8-125,) A similar phenomenon was observed in the area surrounding The Grove at Fanners Market, in the
City of Los Angeles, in the 2002 opening year, According to a February 2004 study based upon data provided by
the City of Los Angeles Department of Finance, Tax and Penn it Unit, taxable sales in the vicinity of The Grove at
Fanners Market increased 66 percent in 2002, (ld,)
The Project intends to merchandise the center with a mix of retailers emphasizing an upscale fashion
orientation intended to complement the offerings of the adjacent Westfield Santa Anita, The fashion anchors are
expected to be a combination of specialty retailers whose offerings would include some apparel and accessories
not presently available within the defined primary trade area, Arcadia and the surrounding area currently have few
upscale fashion-oriented specialty department store offerings, Further, the restaurant and shops that would
surround the water feature would provide a unique shopping and dining experience for patrons, Therefore, the
Project would present added shopping, dining, and commercial uses in a unique setting that would cater to the
upscale, sophisticated patrons in the City and the surrounding primary trading area, with a merchandise mix
complementing, rather than directly competing with, surrounding retail establishments, While the Project would
60
enhance the shopping and dining opportunities available in the City and in the primary trade area, on a worst-case
basis, total projected transferred sales from existing Arcadia retailers would amount to approximately 13 percent
of Arcadia's projected non-project 2009 shopping center-inclined sales on a one-time basis, a level not expected
to generate a significant or lasting negative impact on local retailers, The surrounding area could experience an
improvement in overall sales levels due to the recapture of sales now leaking from the community, especially to
fashion-oriented department stores, (Id.)
The impact on Westfield Santa Anita is expected to be somewhat more pronounced, but still relatively
modest. Westfield Santa Anita currently accounts for approximately 90 percent of Arcadia's total taxable retail
sales for the categories of general merchandise, apparel, home furnishings, and eating/drinking establishments,
and would be expected to absorb a similar share of transferred sales, Based on sales projected for the proposed
Project and Santa Anita's current share of Arcadia's shopping center-inclined taxable sales, anticipated sales
transfer, on a worst-case, one-time basis, would amount to approximately 15 percent of Westfield Santa Anita's
projected sales in 2009, (Final EIR at p, 4-257,) It is also likely that sales levels would increase due to the
enhancement of the area's regional draw, The potential impact would be expected to result in few or no business
failures at Westfield Santa Anita, and would not be a significant enough impact to be considered "urban decay" or
"blight." A resumption of historical growth in expenditures within the trade area should allow for a complete
recovery to sales levels at Westfield Santa Anita prior to implementation of the proposed Project within
approximately 3 years, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,8-126,)
Local smaller businesses are primarily community serving in nature, and would not be likely to compete
directly with the proposed retail uses, whose tenants would be national and serve a wider trade area, The City has
many small, neighborhood retail stores that serve local residents, The project, in contrast, is designed to serve not
just the City, but cities in the primary trade area that currently spend a good portion of shopping and tax dollars in
other areas, The project could help stem this leakage by keeping City and primary trade area residents shopping
and dining in an upscale environment. This analysis indicates that the proposed Project would not result in any
substantial effect on existing retail uses that would indirectly result in urban decay or physical deterioration (Id,),
The proposed Project's cinema would be situated to serve the patrons of the new development. Based on
the distribution of existing newer theaters in the vicinity of the Project Site, the Project's cinema is expected to
serve a trade area within a 5-mile radius, Within that 5-mile radius, five multiplex cinemas, a total of 50 screens,
currently operate; addition of the Project's theater component would increase the total to 66 screens serving the
market. With a projected population of 440,000 persons in the primary trade area by the third full year of project
operations (with spending potential of approximately $13,8 million in constant 2005 dollars), the Project's
theaters would represent approximately 24 percent of the future inventory within the defined trade area, A pro rata
share of spending potential would amount to approximately $3.4 million. According to the National Association
of Theater Owners, which provides annual statistics on box office revenues, the average box office revenue per
screen in the United States is approximately $238,200 (as of 2005), Therefore, trade area spending alone should
support approximately 14 new screens if the national average box office productivity is achieved, and as many as
20 screens, assuming a 30 percent contribution to sales from those residing beyond the defined primary trade area,
(Id,)
The new cinema would compete most directly with the adjacent AMC complex at Westfield Santa Anita;
however, because the AMC theaters are still fairly new, it is anticipated that the proposed Project's theater
component would have a more significant impact on other cinema facilities in the trade area which are now
functionally obsolescent (smaller, older theaters lacking state-of-the-art sound and visual experience), The
Regency Pasadena Academy (at the outer fringe of the defined trade area) and Pacific Hastings cinemas, offering
a total of 14 screens, are both more than 25 years old, placing them in the functionally obsolescent category,
Given the existing state-of-the-art cinemas that are already in the City, it is anticipated that these two theaters
would not continue to operate into the distant future, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,8-127,) Considering the
obsolescence of these two cinemas, there should be sufficient support within the trade area for more than the 16
state-of-the-art screens proposed by the Project. (Final EIR pp, 4-194 - 4-196, 4-255 - 4-256) If the proposed
Project were to result in closure of these two older theaters, this impact would not be considered significant
61
enough to constitute urban decay or blight conditions, It should also be noted that an alternate economic analysis
for cinema market potential contained in the appendix to the Speer report allocates an estimated pro-rated share of
patronage within the 5-mile radius to all competitive cinema properties, which indicates that 16 screens should be
viable at The Shops at Santa Anita, (ld,)
One of the proposed Project retail anchors is a gourmet grocery store with an ancillary farmers' market-
oriented specialty food pavilion, Supermarkets typically draw a significant majority of their business from those
living within 3 miles of their location, while gounnet grocers enjoy a more extended trade radius, often 5 miles or
more, For purposes of this analysis, spending potential within a 5-mile radius has been analyzed and is considered
appropriate for the proposed use, The gourmet grocery operation at the site is expected to draw most of its
patronage within a 5-mile radius of the site as well, Within the defined trade area, there are four Trader Joe's
stores, two Howie's Ranch Markets, one How's market, one Wild Oats, and one Whole Foods presently
operating, None of these stores presently features the combination of gourmet grocerylfarmers' market offerings
anticipated for the proposed Project, and none is located within Arcadia city limits, Introduction of such a
gourmet grocery operation into the proposed development presents an opportunity to recapture specialty grocery
sales that presently leak to outlying areas, While the proposed Westfield Santa Anita expansion at one time
proposed specialty grocer, the excess demand in the primary trade area for gourmet grocers is sufficient to
accommodate more than one such use, (ld,)
The proportion of total household income expended in supermarkets and grocery stores has been
calculated based on data from the V,S, Census of Retail Trade, the V.S, Census of Population, and National
Decision Systems (now a part of Claritas, Inc,), Total supermarket/grocery expenditures in the Los Angeles
metropolitan area are estimated at about 6 percent of household income, Area residents within the defined trade
area currently spend an estimated $625 million in supermarkets and grocery stores, The total is projected to reach
a levei of more than $797 million by 20 iI, Growth within the defined trade area would create about $110 million
in net new retail demand (expenditure potential) by 2009 and more than $172 million in new demand for
merchants within the trade area by 20 II. The gourmet grocery is anticipated to generate approximately $25
million in sales in 2009, absorbing approximately 20 percent of projected net excess demand within the defined
trade area in that year. (ld,) By 2011, sales should reach approximately $27 million, absorbing 14 percent of
projected net excess supermarket/grocery demand within a 5-mile radius of the proposed development. (new Draft
EIR at pp, 4,8-1528,)
Based on the above analysis, the economic impacts of the proposed Project are anticipated to have a less-
than-significant impact on physical changes in the environment. (Id,)
AEA Modifications: The reduction in square footage of the cinema/theater building and the retail
building under the AEA Modifications would not substantially reduce the sales tax revenues from the project to
the City, Final EIR AEA at p, 25 and App, B (Revised Analysis of Sales Tax Revenues (Speer Consulting 2007),)
The AEA Modifications would result in an approximately $20,000 decrease in sales tax revenues, which is an
extremely modest decrease (less than I percent) in comparison to the approximately $2.3 million in sales taxes
that would have accrued to the City under project conditions examined in the new Draft EIR, Three fewer cinema
screens would be introduced as part of the Project. (AEA, p, I) No new significant environmental impact or a
substantial increase in the sl:verity of an environmental impact with respect urban blight or decay would occur
compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be similar to impacts discussed in the new
Draft EIR for the project without the AEA Modifications, (ld, at p, 25,)
Cumulative Imoacts: The defined primary trade area now has a per capita inventory of shopping center
space that is 10 percent below regional averages and 30 percent below the corresponding figure for the state of
California, suggesting there is ample room for additional retail development within the trade area, (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,8-129,) The proposed Project would absorb approximately 33 percent of net excess retail demand within
the defined primary trade area in its first full year of operation (2009), declining to about 23 percent of net excess
demand by 2011, Therefore, initially, there would be approximately 66 percent excess demand available for other
retail projects in the trade area at buildout of the proposed Project, or 2009, and 77 percent excess demand
62
available in 20 II, The two large cumulative retail projects would absorb approximately 36 percent (their
proportionate share based 011 square footage) of the remaining demand, Thus, given that the remaining excess
demand in the primary trade area that would be available for other retail is greater than what would likely be
required by the cumulative projects, the viability of current businesses and the cumulative retail projects would
not be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. The cinema component would be sufficiently supported
within the trade area given the obsolescence of two existing theaters in the trade area, as noted above, There
would be three fewer screens proposed in the Project. No new cinemas are currently proposed other than the
proposed Project; therefore, there would be no cumulative impact with regard to theater uses, There are no
specialty or gourmet groceries within Arcadia city limits, and the proposed Project, as noted above, would be
expected to recapture the specialty grocery sales that presently leak to outlying areas, The Westfield Santa Anita
expansion is expected to accommodate a specialty grocer, However, as identified, there is ample excess demand
to accommodate more than one gourmet grocer in the City, Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact from
the specialty grocery component of the proposed Project. The Simulcast Center would principally consolidate
existing betting uses, and no other pari-mutuel wagering facilities are proposed in the primary trade area;
therefore, there is no cumulative impact with respect to wagering facilities, Thus, there is no cumulative impact
leading to blight or urban decay, The cumulative impact of the proposed Project on economically caused urban
blight or decay is not cumulatively considerable, and the impact is, therefore, less than significant. (ld,)
I. Noise
Impact: If the Project is located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airstrip, would it expose people residing or working in the Project
Site to excessive noise levels? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,9-30,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project Site to excessive noise
levels due to a local public airport or airstrip, (Id,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles ofa public
airport or public use airport, The nearest public airport to the Specific Plan Area is the EI Monte Airport, which is
located approximately 3 miles south of the Specific Plan Area, in the City of EI Monte, Thus, no impact related to
the exposure to people residing or working in the Project Site to excessive noise levels is anticipated, (ld.)
Impact: If the Project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would it expose people residing or
working in the Project Site to excessive noise levels? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,9-31,)
Finding: The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity ofa local airstrip, (ld,)
Explanation: The Specific Plan Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, The nearest airstrip
had been the Methodist Hospital Helistop, which received about 12 to 15 helicopter flights per year, but it was
decommissioned in 2006, It is no longer operational and no plans exist to reopen it in the foreseeable future,
Therefore, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the Project Site to excessive noise
levels is anticipated to occur from a private airstrip, (ld,)
Impact: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise levels? In specific, would construction activities associated with the proposed Project
expose structures on site to excessive ground-borne vibration? Also, would operation of the proposed Project
generate or expose sensitive receptors on site or off site to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,9-54, Impacts 4,9-10 and 4,9-11)
Finding: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not expose structures on site to
excessive ground-borne vibration, Operation of the proposed Project would not generate or expose sensitive
receptors on site or off site to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels,
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not expose structures on site to
excessive ground-borne vibration, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,9-62,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
63
Operation of the proposed Project would not generate or expose sensitive receptors on site or off site to excessive
ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. This is considered a less-than-significant impact,
During construction of the proposed Project within the Specific Plan Area, the on-site structures that
would be impacted by ground-borne vibration levels would include the horse stables and the administrative office
located approximately in the western portion of the Specific Plan Area, the Grandstand, the Round Barn, and the
Kingsbury Memorial Fountain, Based on the information presented in Table 4,9-4 of the new Draft EIR, vibration
levels could reach approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of a construction site, As the administrative office is
located approximately 50 feet from the area where structural development would occur, the vibration levels
experienced by this structure could reach up to 81 VdB, The nearest horse stables, which are located
approximately 100 feet from the boundary of the area where structural development would occur, could
experience vibration levels of up to 87 VdB. The existing Santa Anita Park Grandstand, which would be located
approximately 230 feet from the nearest proposed building (Building T), could experience vibration levels of up
to 68 VdB. (/d,)
The vibration levels experienced in the vicinity of the Kingsbury Memorial Fountain and the existing barn
could reach up to 75,3 VdB. Implementation of the proposed Project would include construction of an
approximately 98,000-sf Simulcast Center within the Grandstand of Santa Anita Racetrack. Construction activity
would include removal of a portion of Grandstand seating, and other interior features; however, vibration levels
associated with the construction activity could reach up to 79 VdB, Thus, the vibration levels experienced by the
on-site structures during construction would not exceed the FTA's vibration damage threshold for fragile
buildings (100 VdB) or extremely fragile historic buildings (95 VdB), Consequently, the vibration impacts on
these on-site structures would be considered to be less than significant. No mitigation is required, Further, a
historic preservation architect shall be hired to work with the Project team on design of the Simulcast Center's
details and method of construction to ensure that construction activities associated with the Simulcast Center does
not impact the remainder of the Grandstand, (/d, at pp, 4,9-62-63,)
Operation of the proposed Project would not generate or expose sensitive receptors on site or off site to
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels, This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
During operation of the proposed Project, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average
around 50 VdB, as discussed previously in this section, This is substantially less than the FTA's vibration impact
threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, and less than the 55 VdB for horses stabled on site, Ground-borne
vibration resulting from operation of the proposed Project would primarily be generated by trucks making
periodic deliveries to the proposed Project site, However, these types of deliveries would be consistent with
deliveries that are currently made along roadways in the Project vicinity to nearby commercial uses, and on site as
a result of ongoing Racetrack operations, and would not increase ground-borne vibration above existing levels,
No substantial sources of ground-borne vibration would be built as part of the proposed Project; therefore,
operation of the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors on site or off site to excessive ground-
borne vibration or ground-bome noise levels, and this impact would be less than significant. (/d,)
Impact: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project? In specific, would operation of the proposed Project generate
increased local traffic volumes that would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels such that
horses associated with Santa Anita Park would be stressed or agitated? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,9-73, Impact 4,9-
13,)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would not generate increased local traffic volumes that would cause a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels such that horses associated with Santa Anita Park would be
stressed or agitated, (Draft EIR at p, 4,9-73,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
Explanation: The increase in traffic noise within the Specific Plan Area to horses would be significant if it would
result in sudden increases in noise, In terms of the effects of increased ambient noise resulting from traffic on the
horses located within the Specific Plan Area, both Table 4,9-16 and Table 4,9-17 of the Draft EIR show that the
increase in noise levels on Baldwin A venue, which is the nearest roadway to the horse stables, resulting from the
64
proposed Project would not exceed 3 dBA CNEL over existing noise levels, which is the threshold of significance
for impacts on horses, as discussed previously, and these increases would not be impulsive or periodic, As such,
this impact on the horses would be less than significant. (Jd, at pp, 4,9-73-74,)
J. Population and Housing
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively induce substantial population growth in the area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the
extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10- 8,12, Impact 4,10-1.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or
other infrastructure), (Jd,; Final EIR AEA at p, 28,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not induce substantial population growth beyond
that planned for the City, This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Because the Project would provide no
new housing, this threshold addresses the potential for population growth resulting from the provision of
employment opportunities either as a result of construction activities or operation of the Project. As proposed, the
Project would include up to 804,250 sf of commercial uses, a 97,977 sf Simulcast Center, and up to 25,000 sf of
office uses that would be provided to the Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD), (Jd,)
The proposed Project would generate up to 1,300 long-term employment positions, and based on similar
projects, the distribution of part-time to full-time would be approximately 60 percent (780) full-time and
40 percent (520) part-time, Approximately 1,200 net new employees would be associated with the commercial
entertainment portion of the proposed Project (excluding the office uses), and approximately 100 net new
employees would be associated with the Simulcast Center. The 100 employees associated with the office portion
of the Project would not be net new employees, as they would be shifted from existing (and crowded) Arcadia
Unified School District (AUSD) facilities within the City, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,10-9,) None of these
employees would be expected to relocate to the City, for reasons discussed below, and this analysis assumes that
implementation of the proposed Project would not result in secondary or indirect growth resulting from project-
related employment generation, (Jd,)
The 2000 U,S, Census indicated a population of 53,054 in the City, In order to conservatively estimate the
population that would be available in the workforce, the population that was 18 years or younger and 65 years or
greater were removed from the total 2000 U,S, Census population for the City, Therefore, in 2000, the City had a
worker-age population of 32,469, According to the California Employment Development Department,
unemployment in Arcadia stands at 2,5 percent of the labor force in June 2006, Therefore, using the 2000 U,S,
Census data, which is the most current census data available, and the June 2006 unemployment rate,
approximately 812 workers would be unemployed in the City, Using the SCAG population of56,161 for the City
in 2005, with the same percent of individuals under 18 years of age and over 65 years of age, and the current
unemployment rate of2,5 percent, the available labor force would increase to 859, and may even increase further
by 2009, when the Project is occupied, (Jd,)
Some of the neighboring communities, such as the Cities of Monrovia, Pasadena, and Temple City, could
also provide a proximate workforce to fill the employment needs of the proposed Project. Based on the available
workforce in the Cities of Arcadia, Pasadena, Monrovia, and Temple City, which combined is almost 5,500
workers, the full-time project employment for the commercial entertainment and Simulcast Center portion of the
Project could be filled by currently unemployed residents of the City, as ':Veil as by unemployed residents in
neighboring communities, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,10-10,) Further, it is possible that some of the positions would
be filled by individuals who live even further away than the Cities of Arcadia, Pasadena, Monrovia, or Temple
City, which provides an even more extensive available labor force to fill the Project-generated jobs, Also, it is
possible that existing, employed residents of the City and/or neighboring communities could change jobs and fill
the new employment opportunities offered by the proposed development, providing an additional potential labor
pool. However, people are generally unlikely to move for jobs in the retail and food service industry, even if they
65
are managerial jobs; therefore, this analysis assumes that the new jobs provided by the Project would not result in
new households within the City, (ld,)
In addition, construction employees would also be required to construct the proposed Project. The number
of construction employees would vary depending upon the phase of construction, but would range from 25
employees at the beginning of construction activities to just over 1,000 employees during the most labor-intensive
phases of construction, It is anticipated that out-of-area construction employees would commute from elsewhere
in the region, rather than relocate to the Arcadia area for a temporary construction assignment. Therefore,
construction-related activities would have a negligible impact on population and housing resources, (ld,)
The office component of the proposed Project would, as described above and in Chapter 3,0 (Project
Description) of the new Draft EIR, be offered to the AUSD for a rent-free, 40-year lease: a tentative agreement
for the use of this space has been established, Currently, the AUSD employs 100 administrative staff in the
existing AUSD administrative offices, which are located on the Arcadia High School campus, All of these
employees are anticipated to move to the proposed (or new) office space upon its completion, which is anticipated
in 2009, No other tenants for the new office space are anticipated, Because the office component of the proposed
Project would simply shift existing employees from a site within the City and less than a mile away from the
Specific Plan Area, none of these employees are anticipated to relocate as a result of this shift; consequently, the
office component of the proposed Project would not result in additional households within the City, (ld,)
In addition, it should be noted that the General Plan provides for up to 1,1 million sf of commercial uses
on the Project Site, Therefore, the employment that would be generated by commercial uses on site has been
accounted for in previous growth projections, and the proposed Project would not result in any increase in
employment not accounted for in the General Plan, (Id,)
Because nO component of the proposed Project would result in additional households within the City, no
direct population growth would occur as a result, and the proposed Project would not exceed General Plan or
SCAG population or housing growth projections, Therefore, this impact is less than significant, and no mitigation
is required. (ld.)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would reduce the size and number of screens in the
cinema/theater building, and would reduce the size of the retail building from what had been studied in the new
Draft EIR, These modifications would not result in a direct or indirect increase in employment in the City (and,
thus, the potential for an increase in resident population), The increase in height of the parking structure would
not generate new employees, as the square footage would be the same, Maintenance personnel would be hired for
the entire CE zone, and no additional maintenance personnel would be required to serve the proposed project even
with the potential project modifications, Implementation of the potential project modifications to the West
Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, and the retail building would also not result in the displacement of
people or housing, None of the AEA Modifications would result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts with respect to increased employment and population growth, or the displacement of
people or housing, Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR,
(Final EIR AEA at p,28,)
Cumulative Impacts: The City is largely built out and the City's General Plan acknowledges that few
parcels of developable land remain within the City, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10-12,) Cumulative housing
development within the City currently consists of two projects that include a total of 157 dwelling units, Based on
the average household size in Arcadia of2,83 persons (City, 2001), cumulative residential development within the
City would result in direct population growth of approximately 444 people, Because the proposed Project includes
no housing and all alterations to grooms quarters onsite are not taken into account in city housing totals, the total
cumulative growth in the City includes 157 housing units and an estimated 444 people, (ld,)
SCAG projects an increase of approximately 1,034 residents from 2005-2010, Cumulative development
within the City would result in an increase of an estimated 444 residents, which would not exceed SCAG's
population projections for the City, In addition, the General Plan EIR accounts for a buildout population in 2015
66
of approximately 59,088 persons, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,10-13,) Combined with the existing population of
approximately 56,145 (CDoF 2006), cumulative development would result in a total population of approximately
56,589 residents, Although this is less than the General Plan's population buildout projection, it is infeasible to
determine the exact portion of the City's population projection because the General Plan EIR forecasts include
both the City and its sphere of influence, However, because cumulative development would fall well short of
SCAG population projections, cumulative impacts related to population growth would be less than significant.
Since the Project adds no population to the City, the contribution of the proposed Project to a cumulative
population impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and would be less than significant. (/d,)
SCAG projects an increase of approximately 587 housing units from 2005-2010, Cumulative
development within the City would result in an increase of approximately 157 residential units, which is also less
than SCAG's housing increase projections, In addition, the General Plan EIR accounts for total housing within the
City at 2015 to be 20,544 units, Combined with the existing housing estimate of approximately 20,155 units,
cumulative development would result in approximately 20,312 units, which would be within the number projected
by the City, Consequently, because cumulative development would not exceed SCAG or General Plan EIR
projections, cumulative housing impacts would be less than significant. Since the Project adds no housing units to
the City, the contribution of the proposed Project to a cumulative housing impact would not be cumulatively
considerable, and would be less than significant. (/d.)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10-11, 13, Impact 4,10-
2,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere, (Id.; see Final EIR AEA at p, 28,) .
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing
and is considered a less-than-significant impact. (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10-11.)
The stable area of the Racetrack contains 458 grooms' quarters, The Gate 8 reconfiguration that would
occur with the proposed Project would affect all or portions of three buildings in the stable area, and the
installation of a new water line near Gate 8 and Baldwin A venue would remove an additional building in the
stable area, (/d,) See Draft EIR at Table 4,10-6, These four structures include 16 grooms' quarters (3,5 percent of
the quarters on the site), 63 horse stalls, and 13 tack rooms, However, these grooms' quarters are provided as
temporary housing for people who care for the horses stabled at the track, Further, the loss of 63 horse stalls,
replacements for which are not foreseeable, would eliminate the need to house approximately 32 grooms at the
Racetrack, However, the demolition of 16 grooms' quarters could result in the loss of housing for 32 to 64
grooms, Even if the same number of horses were stabled at the Racetrack (that is, 1,200 during the non-racing
season and 1,600 during the racing season), which is unlikely given the loss of stables, 600 to 800 grooms
(calculated as one groom per two horses) could be accommodated within the 442 existing grooms quarters
(calculated as 458 existing grooms' quarters minus the loss of 16 grooms' quarters), (Id,) As previously
mentioned, 2 to 4 grooms could occupy a single grooms' quarter, which means that 884 to 1,768 grooms could be
accommodated within the remaining 442 grooms' quarters, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10-13,) Therefore, the
remaining grooms' quarters are anticipated to be adequate to accommodate any displaced grooms (Caruso 2006),
Consequently, implementation of the proposed Project would not displace existing, permanent housing, and this
impact is considered less than significant. (/d,; see also Final EIR AEA at p, 28,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed above in Section II.J of these Findings, none of the ABA
Modifications would result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with respect to increased
employment and population growth, or the displacement of people or housing, Impacts would be the same as
under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, (Final BIR AEA at p,28,)
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative housing development within the City does not include demolition of
existing housing units, and, instead, would result in a net growth in housing, as described above, (new Draft BIR
67
at p, 4,10-13,) Further, according to SCAG and City projections, housing growth within the City is anticipated to
continue to grow, Consequently, a less-than-significant cumulative impact would occur with respect to the
displacement of housing or people within the City, (Id,) The proposed Project would include the demolition of 16
of the 458 grooms' quarters in the stable area of the Racetrack, However, temporary housing for some grooms
would no longer be required at the Racetrack, as up to 63 horses would no longer be stabled at the Racetrack, and
the remaining grooms would be accommodated within the remaining 442 grooms' quarters in the Specific Plan
Area, Consequently, no replacement housing would be necessary, and the proposed Project would not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative impact related to the displacement of housing or people
within the City, and the cumulative impact would remain less than significant. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project either individuaily or cumulatively displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,10-12, 15, Impact 4,10-
3,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere, (Id, ; Final EIR AEA at p, 28,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of people and
would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,10-12; see also Final EIR
AEA at p, 28,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.) Implementation of the proposed Project
would demolish about 16 grooms' quarters, or about 3,5 percent of the existing, temporary housing provided for
grooms at the Racetrack. As also described above, some of these quarters would no longer be necessary with the
proposed elimination of 63 horse stalls (approximately 32 grooms would no longer be required at the Racetrack,
given a ratio of one groom for every two horses), Further, grooms associated with remaining horses at the
Racetrack could still be accommodated within the 442 remaining grooms' quarters in the stable area, which are
not utilized to capacity, Consequently, implementation of the proposed Project would not displace substantial
numbers of people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing, (Id.)
AEA Modifications: As discussed above in Section I1.J of these Findings, none of the AEA
Modifications would result in new or substantiaily more severe environmental impacts with respect to increased
employment and population growth, or the displacement of people or housing. Impacts would be the same as
under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p,28,)
Cumulative Impacts, See Cumulative Impacts discussion above in this Section II.J, The proposed Project
would not have any cumulative impacts in this regard,
K. Public Services
Impact: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physicaily altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, or other performance objectives for schools? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,11-27,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives for schools, (Id,; see also Final EIR AEA at p,
29,)
Explanation: It was determined in the new Draft EIR that the proposed Project would not result in an increase in
the demand for classroom space in the AUSD, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,11-28,) Similarly, construction activities
would not result in an additional demand for schools as potential employees are not anticipated to relocate to the
City for a temporary work opportunity, However, the Developer shall pay to the AUSD the prevailing state
Department of Education Development Fee to the extent allowed by state law, Because school fees are exacted
from commercial uses, the Developer would be required, by law, to help fund necessary school service and
68
facilities improvements to ac;commodate anticipated population and school enrollment growth within the AUSD
service area, even though the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly contribute to this enrollment
growth, Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on school facilities, No mitigation is required, (ld,)
Impact: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable objectives
for library services? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,11-30,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, or other perfonnance objectives for library services, (ld,; see also Final EIR
AEA at p, 29,)
Explanation: The project site is served by two libraries, the Arcadia Public Library and the Live Oak Branch of
the Los Angeles County library system, Combined, these libraries have a collection of over 215,487 items and a
square footage of 50,890 sf, as of June 2006, Using the total collection number of2 I 5,487 items and the estimated
population of the City with the proposed Project, which is approximately 56,42 I persons, the City would have a
ratio of 3,82 items per capita, In comparison with the recommended service ratio from the California Library
Association of two items per capita, this ratio exceeds the recommended level of the California Library
Association and would remain within the adequate service range, Recognizing that individuals from outside of the
City could use these collections (such as employees of the proposed Project), a total of 108,285 individuals would
need to utilize these two branches in order to drop below the California Library Association service ratio of two
items per capita, which is almost double the existing population of the City, Even if every employee of the
proposed Project used the City's libraries, it would represent an increase of only 1,300 net new employees, which
is well within the surplus of 51 ,864 individuals that would need to use the libraries to exceed the identified service
ratio (calculated as 108.285 individuals minus the existing City population of 56,42 I individuals), (ld,)
The Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) branch facilities site selection criteria also identifies key criteria
to ensure that every community is adequately served with library facilities, For the City, which has a population
of approximately 56,000, a library facility of 12,500 sf would be required, The proposed Project would not, as
described above and in Section 4, I 0 (Population and Housing) of the new Draft EIR, result in a direct or indirect
population increase within the City; consequently, 12,500 sf would remain an appropriate facility size for the
City, The Arcadia Public Library is significantly larger than the recommended square footage, totaling 48,000 sf
without considering the Live Oak Branch of the Los Angeles County Library system at an additional 2,890 sf.
Therefore, the population of the City would be adequately served by library facilities and would not require new
or physically altered facilities, (ld,)
While the Live Oak Branch of the Los Angeles County library system is significantly smaller than the
Arcadia Public Library, at 2,890 sf, and is not large enough to meet the square footage standards set above (if it
were the only library in the City), it does have the ability to provide access to over 6,000,000 items system-wide
through interlibrary loan system, bringing its per capita book rate to a level that would allow for all residents to
have adequate access in the event that the Arcadia Public Library is not available, either temporarily or
permanently, (Id.) The Los Angeles County library system manages its resources through an Interlibrary Loan
System that provides access to other Los Angeles County libraries, as well as other library jurisdictions, (new
Draft EIR at pp, 4,1 1-31.) Cooperative agreements between the County of Los Angeles Public Library and other
local and national libraries allow residents to obtain books and other materials that are not listed in the County
Library catalog and/or residents can obtain books or other materials that are available in other County libraries,
(ld,)
For all of the reasons outlined above, project impacts associated with the provision of library services
would not require additional staffing, collections, or facilities to maintain an acceptable level of service;
consequently, no impact would occur, See also Final EIR AEA at p, 29, No mitigation is required, (ld,)
69
L. Recreation
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,12-6, 8, Impact 4,12-1.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated,
(Id,; see also Final EIR AEA at p, 29,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the increased use of parks and
recreational facilities by employees of, or visitors to, the proposed Project, and, therefore, would not cause or
accelerate the substantial physical deterioration of these facilities, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,12-6,) This is considered
a less-than-significant impact. (Id,)
The proposed commercial and retail uses would not increase the City's population, as it is anticipated that
full-time jobs in the retail sector are unlikely to induce substantial numbers of people to move into the City and
would instead employ workers from within Arcadia and the surrounding communities (see Section 4,10
[Population and Housing] of the new Draft EIR), Therefore, employees of the proposed Project would not
represent a new population that could result in an increased use of existing neighborhood or regional parks, With
respect to visitors to the proposed Project, the Project is designed to be an entertainment destination for
individuals coming from a trade area defined by communities within an approximate 15 to 20 minute commute
radius as outlined in Appendix N (Speer Retail Market Analysis), The project provides a variety of uses (e,g"
horseracing, leisure activities around the water feature, shopping, dining, and other amenities) which would attract
visitors to the site throughout the day and year, The expected average stay for patrons of The Shops at Santa Anita
(project site only) would be approximately two hours as compared to a typical mall stay which lasts for under one
hour, While at the site, the additional uses provided at the site would have the potential to extend the duration of
the average stay at the site and would reduce the tendency to visit other facilities in the area such as the parks
listed above, The potential need for recreational facilities at some point on the round-trip travel to the site could
either be met or reasonably replaced with on-site activities, For this reason, it is unlikely that visitors to the site
would also choose to visit nearby recreational facilities for active or passive recreational activities, (Id,)
Some portion of visitors to the site would be local residents of the City, As such, they are included in the
population that is used to determine the City's compliance with the Quimby Act standards, As discussed in the
setting of this section, the existing City ratio of parks and recreational facilities is 4,81 acres per 1,000 people,
(Id,)
The proposed Project also includes open space amenities, The proposed Project includes a lA-acre
landscaped open space area at the northern extent of the proposed Project, linking the existing Paddock Gardens
with the commercial entertainment center, in addition to approximately 4,0 acres of landscaped open space
surrounding a 3,5-acre water feature at the southern end of the proposed Project. In addition, while approximately
18,5 acres of Parking Area C, between Huntington Drive and the ring road, would be improved with turf or a
permeable surface, such as turf block, and would be used for Racetrack parking on peak racing days (about 7
times per year), it would function most of the time as a green, open space buffer. However, as with the other open
space uses, it is not considered a park use for purposes of this analysis, (ld,)
Assuming that no new parks and recreational facilities would be acquired in the future, upon buildout of
the proposed Project, the City would have a total of 270,24 acres of parks and recreational facilities, Using the
SCAG 20 I 0 population projection for the City, there would be a total of 57,195 City residents, with none of these
residents indirectly or directly attributable to the proposed Project. Accordingly, the parks and recreational
facilities ratio would remain 4,81 acres per 1,000 people, since the proposed Project would not result in
population growth, The City's system of parks and recreational facilities is adequate through 2010, and the
proposed Project would not result in the additional use of existing parks and recreational facilities to an extent that
70
substantial physical deterioration of facilities would occur or be accelerated, Accordingly, the proposed Project
would result in a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation is required, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed above in Section II.J, there would be no increase in the City's
population resulting from the Project with the AEA Modifications, compared to the projects as previously
proposed with the AEA Modifications, Thus there would be no new significant environmental impacts or
substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with recreational facilities under the Project with the
AEA Modifications, compared to conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under
the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 29,)
Cumulative Impacts: The Arcadia General Plan EIR previously concluded that no additional recreational
facilities would be necessary to accommodate anticipated build-out of the General Plan, (new Draft EIR at p,
4,12-8,) Thus, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Additionally, assuming that no new parks and
recreational facilities would be acquired in the future, upon buildout of the proposed Project, the City would have
a total of 270,24 acres of parks and recreational facilities, Accordingly, the parks and recreational facilities ratio
would remain 4,8 I acres per 1,000 people, A significant increase in the demand for off-site recreational facilities
is not anticipated as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. While the open space amenities of the
proposed Project (the proposed 5.4 acres of open space, 3,5-acre water feature, and 18,5-acre turf area in Parking
Area C) would be made available to City residents, employees, and visitors, these uses would not be considered
recreational or park uses, Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution on the demand for recreational facilities in the City, and the cumulative impact of the proposed
Project would be considered less than significant. (Id,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(new Draft EIR at pp, 4, I 2-7, 8, Impact 4,12-2,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (ld.; see also Final EIR
AEA at p, 29,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an adverse physical effect on the
environment associated with the construction or expansion ofrecreational facilities, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,12-7,)
This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id,) Although about 5.4 acres of open space uses would be
created (not counting the 18,5 acre turf area used for both parking and open space uses), in addition to the 3,5-acre
water feature, no public recreational facilities are proposed as part of the Project that would result in an adverse
physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in a less-than-significant impact,
and no mitigation is required, (Id,)
AEA Modifications: As discussed in the finding above in this Section II.L, there would be no new
significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
recreational facilities under the Project with the AEA Modifications, compared to conditions evaluated in the new
Draft EIR, Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR
AEA at p, 29,)
Cumulative Imoacts: According to the General Plan EIR, cumulative development within the City
through 20 I 0 would be sufficiently provided with recreational opportunities, demonstrated by the existing and
projected high ratio of parks and recreational acreage to residents, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,12-8,) Further, the
proposed Project does not include the development of recreational facilities, but does include open space, which
does not apply to the Quimby Act analysis, (Id,) Development of related projects in the City could result in the
construction of recreational facilities that might have an adverse effect on the environment, particularly with
regard to air quality, noise, and traffic during construction, Improvements to existing recreational facilities could
also result in significant adverse environmental impacts, Depending on the nature and extent of any proposed
recreational project, construction-related impacts could be significant. However, because the Project does not
71
propose any recreational facilities, there is no cumulatively considerable contribution to potential cumulative
impacts, and no impact would result, (fd,)
M. Transportation and Traffic
Impact: Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-69,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, (fd,)
Explanation: The proposed Project would not result in an increase in air traffic levels or a change in location of
air traffic patterns that would result in substantial safety risks, as air traffic patterns would not be affected (i,e., the
only mode of transport affected by the Project is automobile operations), The project would include no provisions
for airborne shipping or receiving, Also, the proposed Project site is not located within two miles of any airport
(EI Monte Airport is 3 miles to the south) and is not included in an airport land use plan, Therefore, no impact to
air traffic patterns would occur as a result of the proposed Project (fd,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e,g" sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment)? (new Draft
EIR at pp, 4,13-95, 109, Impact 4,13-8,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e,g" sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g" farm equipment), (fd,)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features
or incompatible uses, (new Draft EIR at p, 4, I 3-95,) Compliance with the identified project requirement PR 4, I 38
would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (fd,) Roadway improvements would be made as
part of the proposed Project and would not represent an increase in hazards associated with a design feature, and,
instead, are designed to reduce any potential hazards, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,13-96-97,) Further, compliance with
PR 4, I 38 would ensure that hazards related to loading docks would remain less than significant by providing
minimum design standards, Therefore, any impacts associated with project design features would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required, (fd,)
AEA Modifications, With respect to vehicular circulation and access (including emergency access), the
southward movement of West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, and retail building would not
substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and presented in Figure 3.2 I of the new Draft EIR or
result in a hazardous design feature, Also, while pedestrian circulation would be slightly modified in that the
entrance to the cinema/theater building would be from an open pedestrian area located on the covered portion of
the Arcadia Wash, this would not be a hazardous design feature, Additionally, the proposed Project, including the
AEA Modifications, would be required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate
emergency access, The AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental
impacts associated with vehicular or pedestrian access and circulation compared to, and impacts would be the
same as, the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 30,)
Cumulative Impacts: It is anticipated that future development of the cumulative projects and other future
development would be required to adhere to standard engineering practices and requirements and would be
subject to planning and design review by the presiding jurisdiction to avoid traffic hazards created by design
features and land use incompatibilities, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-109,) For this reason, and because such impacts
(if and where they occur) are relatively site specific, cumulative impacts associated with such traffic hazards are
less than significant. The proposed Project traffic improvements would not present an increase in hazards
associated with a design feature, and, instead, are designed to reduce any potential hazards, In addition, PR 4,I3A
has been proposed to reduce any potential hazards associated with loading areas, For these reasons, the
contribution of the proposed Project to any cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and
would be considered less than significant. (Id,)
72
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively result in inadequate emergency access? (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,13-98,109, Impact 4,13-9,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, (ld,; see also Final EIR AEA at
pp, 2, 23, 30,)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,13-98 see also Final EIR AEA at pp, 2, 23, 30,) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (ld,)
The proposed Project would be required to meet all applicable local and state regulatory standards for
adequate emergency access, Elements of the internal circulation plan include a "ring-road" that would connect the
entire project site from end to end, allowing project traffic to access all portions of the area from Gate 4 to Gate 8;
providing an alternate route for project traffic to avoid unnecessary use of city streets; providing higher internal
roadway capacity than normally experienced in a retail center; providing connectivity between the Racetrack and
retail area of the Project Site; providing flexible connections that could be opened and closed as needed;
improving access to the Westfield Santa Anita via the shared Baldwin/Gate 8 entrance via redesign; and
improving access to both the Westfield Santa Anita and the Project Site, Additionally, the Project would be
required to comply with applicable Municipal Code and Fire Code requirements regarding emergency access,
Consequently, the Project would provide adequate emergency access to the Project Site and would not affect
emergency access to off-site uses, Therefore, any potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation is required, (Jd,)
AEA Modifications: As further discussed in this Section II.M re hazardous design feature impacts, the
AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
vehicular or pedestrian access and circulation compared to, and impacts would be the same as, the project
conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, (Final EIR AEA at p, 30,)
Cumulative Impacts: It is anticipated that construction and operation of the cumulative projects would
generate additional traffic on surface streets and intersections in the area of cumulative analysis and would, from
time to time, result in lane closures and other temporary constraints to access, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-109,)
However, operational traffic associated with the cumulative projects and future growth in general is captured
within the assumptions that form the future "without project" traffic volumes utilized in the traffic study for the
new Draft EIR, and which represent an incremental change over existing conditions, lt is not anticipated that
future levels of traffic associated with the related projects would result in a significant impairment of emergency
access, Impacts from closure due to construction of the cumulative projects and other future projects are relatively
site-specific, and thus it is not considered likely that the construction of these projects would have a cumulative
effect above and beyond the immediate effects of this construction at the location in question, For these reasons,
the cumulative impact of the cumulative projects on emergency access is less than significant. The proposed
Project would not result in inadequate emergency access, As a result, trip generation on surface arterials or
construction activity and traffic associated with the proposed Project would not create a cumulatively considerable
addition to future traffic volumes in tenns of its effect on emergency access, For these reasons, the contribution of
the proposed Project to the less-than-significant cumulative impacts on emergency access is less than significant.
(ld,)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively result in inadequate parking capacity? In specific.
would operation of the Project result in inadequate parking capacity during the Oak Tree season? (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,13-100, 110, Impact 4,13-11)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate parking capacity during the Oak Tree
season, This is considered a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required,
Explanation: Without the AEA Modifications, the new commercial portion of the Project would require 3,820
parking spaces, using the City parking code and Specific Plan requirement of 4,75 spaces per 1,000 sf of modified
floor area, The size of the commercial area is assumed to be 804,250 sf without the AEA Modifications, The
office component of 25,000 sf would require four spaces per 1,000 sf or a total of 100 spaces, Based on the
73
Specific Plan guidelines, the total parking supply required for the Project without the AEA Modifications is 3,920
spaces (3,820 for commercial plus 100 for offices), The project description in the new Draft EIR indicates that
two parking decks and two surface parking lots would provide a total of 3,920 new spaces, which would meet the
Specific Plan requirements, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,13-98-99,)
In 2004, the Oak Tree season ran for 26 days from September 29 through October 31 and included sixteen
weekdays and ten weekend days, It is estimated that during Oak Tree season, Area A and V would be completely
occupied each weekend day, Areas A, V and B could be completely occupied two weekend days, Areas A and V
would be completely occupied only one weekday, Area B would be needed one day on weekdays, Area C and the
West Parking Deck would not be needed weekdays during the Oak Tree season, Overflow parking conditions
(offsite parking) would not be required during the Oak Tree season either during weekdays or weekends, (Id,) As
a result, Areas A and V would comfortably serve the weekday patron parking demand all but one day during the
Oak Tree season, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-101.) On that one day, Area B would be used as well, Area C would
need to be opened those two weekend days during the Oak Tree Season when Parking Areas A, B and V are full.
Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project on parking capacity during the Oak Tree Season would be less than
significant. Note that updated (2006) data for the Oak Tree season was not available at the time of this analysis,
(Id,)
ITW /Simulcast: The average attendance for the existing ITW functions during the off-season at the
Racetrack is 2,200 patrons, which translates to approximately 2,000 patron parking spaces (auto occupancy for
ITW is assumed to be lower than race day auto occupancy because more individuals come alone to the ITW,
which results in more cars per level of attendance), Thus, the average parking demand, including employees,
during the off-season is currently 2,300 spaces, The net addition of restaurant square footage in the new
ITWISimulcast would add some parking demand (approximately 320 spaces on non-race days, and 168 spaces on
race days), This amount of added parking demand would not change the conclusions of the report regarding the
occupancy of the various parking areas during the Oak Tree Season, Santa Anita Season nor change the
conclusions regarding the number of days that parking outside of the Project boundaries would be needed, The
total ITW/Simulcast demand is greatest off season and would use only about 60 percent of the capacity of Area
AN, Hence, Area AN would serve the current ITW and expected future day-to-day ITW/Simulcast parking
demand for the track during the non-racing season, Consequently, the impact of the proposed ITW/Simulcast on
non-race day parking capacity would be less than significant. (Id,)
Adequate parking would be provided at the Specific Plan Area, as required by the City Municipal Code as
well as the Specific Plan Guidelines, Adequate parking would be available during the Oak Tree Season, Adequate
parking would also be available during the off-season at the Racetrack (ITW/Simulcast), Any potential impacts
relating to parking capacity would be at a less-than-significant level. (Id,)
The Arcadia Police Department shall enforce any new parking restrictions that are implemented, (new
Draft EIR at p, 4.13-102,) As part of the City's annual budgetary process, decisions would be made about the
level of enforcement officers required to service the permit parking districts, This impact would be less than
significant.
AEA Modifications: Operation of the Project with the modifications suggested in the (:ity Staff Report
would not result in inadequate parking capacity, The modified West Parking Garage would increase in height to
51.6 feet (at the top of the parapet wall), with architectural features extending to 65,6 feet in height; however, the
square footage of the garage would not change and the structure would maintain a capacity of 2,850 cars. The
retail building and the cinema could require fewer parking spaces due to the decrease in size, The relocated
Saddling Bam would not generate individual trips, nor would it require additional parking spaces for that use
alone, As such, the parking impacts evaluated on pages 4,13-98 through 4,13-102 of the new Draft EIR would be
less with the AEA Modifications, The AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the provision of adequate parking, Impacts would be less than for the
project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square
footage, (Final EIR AEA at p, 30,)
74
Cumulative Imoacts: The data indicate that overflow parking (parking outside of the Project boundaries)
would not be necessary during the Oak Tree season, Several of the cumulative projects shown in Figure 4,13-9
(Locations of Cumulative Projects) of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion and
Methodist Hospital Expansion, may contribute to parking demand in the Project vicinity, thereby resulting in
additional overflow parking demand, As the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related
to parking capacity during the Oak Tree Season, this project-related contribution to parking capacity would not be
cumulatively considerable, Cumulative project contribution would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at pp,
4,13-110-11 I.)
Impact: Would the Project exceed individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the
County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? In specific, would operation of the
proposed project would not result in significantly increased demand for service by Arcadia Transit, the City's
demand responsive curb-to-curb service, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,13-103, 110, Impact 4,13-7,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in significantly increased demand for service by Arcadia Transit.
(ld,)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would not result in significantly increased demand for service by
Arcadia Transit, the City's demand responsive curb-to-curb service, This is considered a less-than-significant
impact. Using 3,5 percent as the capture rate discussed previously of person trips assigned to transit, the total
number of transit trips associated with the Project would be 35 trips during the a,m, peak period, 142 trips during
the p,m, peak period, and 1,481 daily trips, (Draft EIR at p, 4,13-110,) It is not anticipated that the Project would
significantly increase demand for service by Arcadia Transit. Arcadia Transit is a demand responsive service,
sometime called "dial a ride" and thus, the demand for Arcadia Transit is mostly generated on the home end, and
includes persons with disabilities and seniors, The shopping area at the Project would attract some demand
response trips; however, the number of actual bus trips would remain substantially the same with an increased
number of riders andlor stops, The additional trips on service provided by Arcadia Transit would mostly be
shifted or diverted from another shopping area to the Project Site rather than new trips on the system, Impacts
would, therefore, be less than significant, and no mitigation is required,
Cumulative Imoacts: Growth associated with the cumulative projects would not likely result in additional
and potentially significant increases in transit use, No cumulative impact would occur, The project's contribution
would be less than cumulatively considerable, and, thus, the cumulative impact is less than significant.
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively conflict with adopted programs, practices, or
procedures supporting alternative transportation (e,g" bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,13-
103,11O,lmpact4,13-13,)
Finding: The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted programs, practices, or procedures supporting
alternative transportation (e,g" bus turnouts, bicycle racks), (Id,)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-103,) However, compliance with the
identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (ld,)
The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation, As identified in PR 4,I3C the proposed Project would comply with City Code requirements and
would provide bicycle racks at a ratio required by City Code; set aside 10% of employee parking spaces for
carpoollvanpool vehicles; and display rideshare information, In addition, the proposed Project includes project
requirements meant to encourage public transit patronage for project-related trips. The Los Angeles County CMP
states the "information on facilities andlor programs that will be incorporated in the development plan that will
encourage public transit use" should be included in the EIR transit impact analysis. After analyzing public transit
within two miles of the proposed Project site, the EIR identifies facilities and/or programs could be incorporated
into the Project to help encourage public transit patronage for project related trips, Note that the implementation
75
responsibility for some of these facilities and programs would fall on agencies other than the City, the lead agency
for this project. Thus, coordination between the City, local and regional transit providers, and the Developer will
be required on several of these items, (Id. See also PR 4,13C, MMRP at pp, 3-107-113, Draft EIR p 4,13-103-
106,) Compliance with PR 4,I3C would ensure that impacts related to programs, policies, or procedures
supporting alternative transportation would remain less than significant by providing alternative transit
opportunities on the Project Site, as well as providing links to off-site transit nodes, (new Draft EIR at p, 4,13-
106,) No mitigation is required, (Id,)
Cumulative Imoacts: Several of the cumulative projects shown in Figure 4,13-9 (Locations of
Cumulative Projects) of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion and Methodist
Hospital Expansion, may conflict with adopted programs, practices, or procedures supporting alternative
transportation, (new Draft EIR at pp, 4,13-128-110,) However, no cumulative impact would occur as with any
development project within the limits of the City, the proposed Project and many of the previously identified
cumulative projects would be required to comply with City Code sections 5904, I through 5904.3, (new Draft EIR
at p, 4,13-111.) These sections include alternative transportation requirements such as ridesharing and the
provision of bicycle racks (refer to PR 4,13C for further clarification), Further, the proposed Project's cumulative
contribution would be less than significant due to the necessary compliance with City Code requirements, Based
on the proposed Project's location in relation to other jurisdictions, the proposed Project's impact would not be
cumulatively considerable relative to other jurisdictions policies and regulations governing alternative
transportation, As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts to adopted programs, practices, or
procedures supporting alternative transportation as a result of implementation of the proposed Project would not
be considerable and would be less than significant. (Id,)
N. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact: Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (new Draft EIR at p,
4,14-13,lmpact4,14-1.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, (Id, " see
also Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new or
expanded water treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects,
Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than
significant. (Id,; see also Final EIR AEA at p, 31,)
Water Convevance Infrastructure: The water distribution system of the commercial entertainment zone is
proposed to be constructed with a master meter, independently of the existing water system that presently serves
the track, as illustrated by Figure 4, I 4-3 (Conceptual Water and Sewer Plan) of the new Draft EIR, (new Draft
EIR at p, 4,14-13,) The proposed water system would be designed to adequately serve the fire flow and water
requirements of the proposed land uses, including the Simulcast Center, from connections at West Huntington
Drive and North Baldwin A venue, All water improvements, including distribution lines, valves, meters, and fire
hydrants are proposed to be constructed in accordance with all applicable public facilities standards, as dictated by
the City's PWSD during the development review process, and would be isolated from the irrigation system, (Id,)
To accommod,lte the proposed Project's water demand, construction of the commercial/retail and office
structures would require incremental extensions of water infrastructure to serve the Project Site, However, these
extensions would not require substantial demolition--{)nly removal of existing surface coverings, which would
already be done during construction, The construction impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the
proposed Project (with respect to the provision and/or relocation of water conveyance infrastructure) are analyzed
in Sections 4,2, 4,9, 4,13 of the new Draft EIR, While significant unavoidable construction impacts would occur
for air quality and noise as a result of construction under the proposed Project, these impacts would be mitigated
76
to the extent feasible by the Project requirements and mitigation measures detailed in those sections, However, to
minimize the potential disruption to water service, which could occur as a result of construction activities,
PR 4,I4A requires that new utility lines or temporary utility lines are constructed prior to the abandonment of the
existing utility lines, (Id,) (See PR4,14A, MMRP at p, 3-114, Draft EIR at p, 4,14-14,) Further, implementation
and extension of water infrastructure would be fully funded and constructed by the Developer in a manner that
would minimize the potential for utility disruption, Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result, and no
mitigation is required, (Id,)
Water Treatment Facilities: The City currently meets water demands, and would continue to do so in the
future, primarily by pumping groundwater from the Main San Gabriel Basin and Raymond Basin and,
occasionally, through direct deliveries of imported water. According to the City, the additional water that is
needed for the proposed Project would be obtained from these same sources, Water quality from the City's
groundwater sources is such that treatment is generally not necessary, For most groundwater wells, chlorination at
the well site for disinfection purposes is the only treatment required, Several wells at the southern extremity of the
City currently require treatment for volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and treatment also occurs at those well
sites, Several other wells do not require special treatment per se, but the water from these wells is blended to
reduce conc,entrations of nitrates, (Id,)
On a systemwide basis, the WSA for the proposed Project states that two additional wells would be
constructed to serve the City's current and future water demands, including those of the proposed Project,
however neither of these wells would be located on the Project site, The necessity for water treatment would be
assessed at the time the California DHS issues an amendment to the City's Domestic Water Supply Permit to
allow these new wells to begin operations, However, given the location of the proposed wells and the City's
experience with existing wells within City limits, it is not expected that necessary treatment would extend beyond
on-site chlorination and, at worst, on-site air-stripping for VOCs, The physical footprint of such treatment
facilities is small and usually exists as attachments to the pumping facilities, Because of the relatively small
magnitude of construction involved with such facilities, and the fact that they are not directly required as a result
of the proposed Project but are required to accommodate citywide growth instead, of which this project is a part,
this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required, (Jd,)
AEA Modifications: Water supply generation and treatment generation are based upon the type of use
and the size of the use, Neither the proposed West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, the retail
building, nor the Saddling Barn have changed since circulation of the new Draft EIR with respect to the type of
use; however, the square footage of the cinema/theater building and retail building have been reduced compared
to the proposed structures evaluated in the new Draft EIR, while the square footage and number of parking stalls
have remained the same for the West Parking Garage, As such, and with implementation of the identified project
requirements and mitigation, as discussed below in Section III.J, impacts regarding water treatment and water
supply would be less than was projected in the new Draft EIR for the project without the AEA Modifications, The
Saddling Barn would maintain its current use, and as such would not require additional water supply over and
above what was evaluated in the new Draft EIR, No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more
severe environmental impacts would result with respect to water supply as a result of the AEA Modifications,
(Final EIR AEA at p, 31.)
Cumulative Imoacts, As discussed in the new Draft ErR, no cumulative impact would occur, The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project cither individually or cumulatively have sufficient water supplies available to scrvc
the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In specific,
would implementation of thc proposed Project would generate an additional demand for water, but would not
rcquire water supplies in excess of existing cntitlements and resources, or result in the need for new or expanded
cntitlements? (new Draft EIR at p, 4,14-17, 50, Impact 4,14-2,)
77
Finding: The proposed Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing
entitlements and resources. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would generate an additional demand for water, but would
not require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources, or result in the need for new or
expanded entitlements. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-17.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
The City currently owns 6 active groundwater wells in the Main San Gabriel Basin (Live Oak I, Peck 1,
Baldwin 2, Longden I, Longden 2, St. Joseph 2) and 7 active groundwater wells in the Raymond Basin (Orange
Grove lA, Orange Grove 2A, Orange Grove SA, Orange Grove 6, Chapman 7, Hugo Reid I, and Anoakia 1), all
of which are illustrated by Figure 4.14-2 (Location of Groundwater Wells) of the new Draft EIR. Assuming a well
operating factor of 75 percent (groundwater wells are operated 75 percent of the time), Arcadia's total current
groundwater pumping capacity is approximately 20,210 AFY (Stetson Engineers 2006). Arcadia plans to
construct two additional wells (Camino Real well in the Main San Gabriel Basin and the Colorado well in the
Raymond Basin), which would allow for a total pumping capacity of approximately 23,240 AFY once these two
new wells come on-line (Stetson Engineers 2006). (Id.)
As detailed in the WSA, the City is allowed to pump in excess of its Decreed Right to the Main San
Gabriel Basin, as detailed in the water adjudication decrees administered by the Basin Watermaster. For the Main
San Gabriel Basin, which is the City's largest source of water, pumping in excess of the City's Decreed Right is
allowed in exchange for the purchase and recharge into the Basin by the City of replacement water. This
replacement water is typically purchased from water importers, such as the USGVMD during wet years, when
surplus water supplies from MWD exist. Combined with the large amount of water in the Basin (8.7 million acre-
feet) and the ability to store water ahead of time in "accounts," the flexibility to draw as much water as needed
and replace it in wet years when surpluses are available gives the Main San Gabriel Basin a high degree of
reliability as a water source. The Raymond Basin also allows flexibility that cushions the City from the short-term
effects of dry years, as the City is permitted to pump up to 10 percent above its Decreed Right, may carry over
10 percent of its Decreed Right from year to year, and may establish a long-term storage account. In addition, the
City has entered into leases of water from other Basin producers. (ld.)
The City may also receive direct delivery from MWD of treated imported water from the City's
connection (USG-6). However, even though the City can receive MWD water, it has only done so twice in the last
20 years. Arcadia has historically met all water demands with groundwater production. Although the City's water
supplies have been historically reliable, Arcadia has prepared a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in its 2005
UWMP that identifies actions to be taken in the event of a catastrophic interruption of water supply, which, in this
case, would be an interruption of service from ground-water resources. (Id.)
As stated in the WSA, MWD has indicated the ability to meet projected supplemental demands for all of
its member agencies, including SGVMWD, which serves Arcadia, for the next 20 years, even during a repeat of
the worst drought scenario (Stetson 2006). These supplemental demands include demands for replacement water,
such as that necessary for the City to pump above its Decreed Right in the Main San Gabriel Basin, as well as
demands for direct delivery of treated water. MWD's 2005 UWMP considers the October 2005 state appellate
court decision decertifying the Programmatic EIRJIS for the CALFED project (the CALF ED project had been
expected to result in decreased deliveries of water to State Water Project contractors, including MWD), as well
the Department of Water Resource's "Excerpts from Working Draft of 2005 State Water Project Delivery
Reliability Report" ("2005 DWR Report"), which presents the latest projections for State Water Project deliveries
and reduces the amount of water expected to be delivered in dry years as compared to the amounts assumed in
previous MWD and Department of Water Resources reports. After taking the effect of the appellate decision and
the 2005 DWR Report into consideration, the 2005 MWD UWMP still concludes that MWD will have sufficient
water available for anticipated water demands in its service area, including the San Gabriel Valley area, through
the year 2025. Furthermore, while MWD projections have not extended to year 2030, it is expected that supplies
will continue to be adequate for the replacement of water at that time. This conclusion is based on the 500,000 AF
buffer planned for by MWD, the practice of MWD developing supplies at least ten years in advance of need, and
78
the fact that MWD is augmenting its programs to store and use surplus water to increase conjunctive use
opportunities, thereby taking advantage of the fact that California's cyclical hydrology presents an opportunity for
wet year surpluses to be used to meet dry year needs. (Id.)
The proposed Project would require 425 AFY of water to meet its demands. There is sufficient water available to
serve the needs of the City, including the proposed Project, with a surplus available under all scenarios
(average/normal year, singlc dry year, and multiple dry years over a three-year period). (See Draft EIR at
Table 4.14-4 through Table 4.14-8.) Based on the demonstrated reliability of Arcadia's water supply sources, as
articulated in the WSA, sufficient water supplies can be reasonably concluded to be fully reliable and available to
meet the City's future demands with the proposed Project, including during single and multiple dry years. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-18.) Therefore, the Project's impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is
required. (Id.) See also Final EIR AEA at p. 31.
AEA Modifications: See discussion in Section II.N above.
Cumulative Impacts: Development of cumulative projects would require additional quantities of water,
depending on net increases in population, square footage, and intensity and type of uses. (new Draft EIR at p.
4.14-50.) This proposed Project would contribute to the overall City water demand, which has been estimated in
the WSA to be 19,355 AFY by 2030. The 2005 UWMP prepared by the PWSD to assess water demand in the
City accounts for all projected development in its service area. The 2005 UWMP includes City water demand and
supply projections, as well as demand management and supply enhancement "elements." In the 2005 UWMP, the
PWSD determined that water supplies for its service area are adequate through 2025. (ld.)
The WSA for the proposed Project relied, in part, upon the analysis of the 2005 UWMP in that it analyzes
the effects of cumulative growth of water demands within the Main San Gabriel Basin, and assesses the ability of
the basin to continue to support these demands. The WSA concluded that water usage within the Main San
Gabriel Basin would increase at a rate of approximately 0.8% per year, to 369,294 AFY in 2030. A significant
portion of this demand would be met by pumping of the Safe Operable Yield of the basin (i.e., the amount of
water that may be pumped on a yearly basis while maintaining a stable water level in the basin, due to the natural
percolation of runoff and undcrground migration of water from other basins). (ld.)
The bulk of the remaining demand within the Main San Gabriel Basin would be met through the direct
delivery of water imports to consumers, or through additional groundwater pumping subject to the requirement
that imported replacement water be purchased and recharged back into the basin. Thus, the ability of water
purveyors such as MWD (from which area consumers receive water, via the USGVMWD, Three Valleys
Municipal Water District, and the San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District [from which State Water Project
imports are delivered for replacement water purposes to the cities of Azusa, Alhambra, and Monterey Park] to
deliver water would ensure that cumulative demands are met in the future. In this regard, the WSA notes that
MWD has concluded that it will have enough water to supply all demands of its member agencies (including
those for groundwater recharge and direct delivery) for the next 20 years, in both normal, single-dry and multiple-
dry year scenarios, and the WSA concludes that it is highly probable that all water demands will be met in 2030
as well, due to the 500,000-acre-foot supply buffer planned for by MWD as well as the practice of MWD
developing supplies at least I () years in advance of need. Furthermore, the WSA indicates that the Department of
Water Resources projects have water in excess of SGVMWD's projected replacement water demands available
67 percent of the time in future years, through 2025. Because SGVMWD's water is used for replacement
purposes, full water delivery every year is not required, and water may be banked or acquired during wet and
normal years to replace water pumped during drier times. It is expected that such conjunctive use practices would
also continue to ensure adequate replacement water supplies through 2030. Thus, all future water demands are
expected to be met within the Main San Gabriel Basin. (Id.)
With regard to the Raymond Basin, groundwater pumping in this basin is limited to a finite group of
right-holders and confined to a set amount of acre-feet per year, with a minor accommodation for over-pumping
in a given year. Owing to this stable arrangement, no cumulative impact is expected to occur with regard to the
provision of adequate water from the Raymond Basin. (Id.)
79
Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts are expected within the Main San Gabriel and Raymond
Basins with regard to the sufficiency of water supplies and entitlements. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-59-60.) The
Project would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative water supply impact since
adequate supplies are available to accommodate the proposed Project and the cumulative impact of the Project is
considered to be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-51.)
Impact: Would the Project fail to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-28 through 29.)
Finding: The proposed Project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (Id.)
Explanation: All cumulative development within the region served by the CSDLAC would be required to
comply with all applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This includes
compliance with AB 939, which requires the City to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from disposal in local
landfills. There is no significant cumulative impact related to compliance with applicable regulations. In addition,
the Project would include a project requirement to provide designated areas for the collection and loading of
recyclables. Therefore, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any cumulative
impact, and this impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
Project's solid waste disposal needs? In specific, would construction of the Project generate solid waste that
exceeds the permitted capacity of the Azusa Land Reclamation facility? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-25, Impact
4.14-3.)
Finding: The proposed Projcct would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the Project's construction solid waste disposal needs. (Id.; new Draft EIR pp. 4.14-25 through 4.14-26, Final EIR
AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Construction of the proposed Project would not generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted
capacity of the Azusa Land Reclamation facility. Compliance with the identified project requirement would
ensure that this impact remains less than significant. (Id.; new Draft EIR pp. 4.14-25 through 4.14-26, Final EIR
AEA at p. 31.)
Construction debris would be generated by the removal of approximately 6 inches of asphalt throughout
the Project Site, as well as demolition of the south ticket gates, portions of the Grandstand (to accommodate the
Simulcast Center), and four stables, totaling approximately 3,495,400 cubic feet of construction debris, which
correlates to 129,459 cubic yards of construction debris (using a conversion rate of 1 cubic foot equals 0.037037
cubic yards). These figures will be somewhat reduced with the relocation as opposed to demolition of the
Saddling Barn. The existing asphalt throughout the parking areas would be scraped. Half of the paving material
removed from parking lots can be crushed, reconditioned, and reused as base material for new roadways and
parking lots on site. The City does not require private developers to comply with the City's internal requirement
that all public contractors recycle 50 percent of their construction debris. However, the Developer would comply
with this requirement pursuant to PR 4.14B. (MMRP at p. 3-115.)
All of the construction debris is anticipated to be sent to the Azusa Land Reclamation (ALR) facility.
ALR is a non-hazardous waste landfill that accepts construction and demolition debris disposal, special waste
disposal, non-hazardous inert wastes, as well as asbestos containing wastes and tires. It operates under permits
from the CIWMB, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City of Azusa. The facility is equipped with
leachate and gas collection systems to meet regulatory guidelines, and the disposal area is fully lined to avoid soil
or groundwatcr contamination. (Id.)
ALR has a remaining capacity of 34,100,000 cubic yards, with a closure date of January I, 2025. The
project's contribution to the landfill's remaining capacity, which is estimated to be 64,730 cubic yards (50 percent
of 129,459 cubic yards) as compared to the ALR capacity of 34,100,000 cubic yards, would represent less than
80
approximately 0.2 percent of the landfill's remaining capacity. Further, the ALR has stated that it could easily
accept all of the construction-related solid waste that is anticipated to be generated by the proposed Project. This
would not represent a significant contribution to the landfill's capacity, and a less-than-significant impact would
result. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: The reduction in square footage under the AEA Modifications would result in less
generation of construction solid waste than projected in the new Draft EIR. As the Saddling Barn would not be
entirely demolished, and many components of it would be relocated to the west side of Kingsbury Fountain, and
with a smallcr cinema and rctail buildings, less construction debris would be generated. Irnpacts would be less
than those under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR (Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Cumulative Impacts: Because the proposed Project includes recycling of 50 percent of construction
debris, and because landfill capacity at Puente Hills landfill is available through 2013, the proposed Project's
contribution is not cumulatively considerablc during construction, and would be less than significant.
Impact: Would the Project fail to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related
to solid waste? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-28, Impact 4.14-5.)
Finding: The proposed Project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste. (Id. see also Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
Public Resources Code ~40000 et seq. requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid
waste generated by January I, 2000. In 2005, the City reached a diversion rate of 69 percent and, therefore, was in
compliance with this legislation. The City remains committed to continue its existing waste reduction and
minimization efforts with thc programs as discussed in Section 4.14.4 (Solid Waste Environmental Setting) of the
new Draft EIR. However, the City does not have waste reduction and minimization programs that specifically
apply to commercial and ollice uses, nor does the City require private developers to comply with the City's
internal requirement for all public contractors to recycle 50 percent of their construction debris. Therefore,
PR 4.14B and PR 4.l4C shall be implemented to require that 50 percent of the proposed Project's construction
debris is recycled and to further designate areas for the collection and loading of recyclables during project
operation in order to assist the City in achieving its waste reduction and recycling efforts. (Id.) Further, the Project
would not conflict with any federal, state, or local statutes or regulations related to solid waste disposal. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-329.) Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-33, 54, Impact 4.14-6.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board. (ld.; see also Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-33; Final EIR, AEA, at p. 31.)
This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (ld.) See also Final EIR AEA at p. 31.
Operational discharges, including sewage and industrial discharges associated with the proposed
restaurant uses, would be sent to the Project's sewer system, which would ultimately be sent to the CSDLAC
system for distribution and treatment at one or more of the CSDLAC wastewater treatment plants. Connections to
the sewer system are regulated by the City's Municipal Code and the CSDLAC's Wastewater Ordinance and
81
Connection Fee Ordinance, which also regulate the applicable permit processes, enforcement measures, and fees
and charges associated with wastewater discharge to the respective sewer systems. (Id.)
Further, the CSDLAC wastewater treatment plants are required to comply with their associated waste
discharge requirements (WDRs), as well as the monitoring and enforcing requirements established by the
LARWQCB, which collectively provide a mechanism to ensure that LARWCQB WDRs are not exceeded. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the SWRCB, the RWQCBs, and the local wastewater
management agency may require some industries to pre-treat industrial wastes prior to discharge to the municipal
sanitary sewer system. (Id.)
Compliance with the City Municipal Code, the CSDLAC's Wastewater Ordinance and Connection Fee
Ordinance, any and all applicable WDRs, as monitored and enforced by the LARWQCB and the CSDLAC for
one or more of the WNWRP, SJCWRP, and JWPCP wastewater treatment facilities, would ensure that the
proposed Project would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the LARWQCB with
respect to discharges to the sewer system. A less-than-significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is
required. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts: The LARWQCB, in connection with implementation of the NPDES program, has
imposed requirements on the treatment of wastewater and its discharge into local water bodies. (new Draft EIR at
p. 4.14-54.) Wastewater produced by future development would meet these requirements through the
implementation of wastewater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other applicable measures required by the
R WQCB prior to issuance of WDRs or other applicable permits. As a result, cumulative development would not
result in the exceedance of LAR WQCB wastewater treatment requirements, and, therefore, would be less than
significant. Because the Project would also be required to implementation of wastewater Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and other applicable measures required by the RWQCB, the Project's contribution would not be
cumulatively considerable, and this is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider that serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-37, 53, Impact
4.14-8.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments. (!d.; Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase wastewater generation such that
treatment facilities would be inadequate to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments. (Final EIR AEA at p. 31.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.14-37; Final EIR, Corrections and Additions p. 2-68-69.) As mentioned in Impact 4.14-7, the Project
Site would contribute an additional 0.225 mgd of wastewater to the sewer system. The current peak flow for the
existing uses at Santa Anita is 0.18 mgd, which would result in a combined total wastewater generation of 0.405
mgd. The total wastewater generation would be transported to one (or more) of the three treatment facilities
mentioned above, which include the WNWRP, SJCWRP, and the JWPCP. The WNWRP is currently operating at
an average flow of 8.1 mgd and has a design capacity of 15 mgd, which provides a remaining average flow
capacity of 6.9 mgd. The SJCWRP has an operating capacity of 100 mgd and is currently operating at 88.7 mgd,
which is 88.7 percent of its operating capacity, correlating to 11.3 mgd of remaining capacity. The JWPCP has an
operating capacity of 400 mgd (although it is only permitted for 385 mgd) and is currently operating at 317 mgd,
which is 82.3 percent of its permitted capacity, resulting in 68 mgd of remaining permitted capacity. (Id.) The
need to treat an additional 0.225 mgd as a result of the proposed project would represent a maximum decrease of
3.26 percent (Final EIR at p. 4-109) in the available capacity of the WNWRP, which is the wastewater treatment
plant with the least remaining capacity. However, it is likely that the impact on any of these wastewater treatment
plants would be less, given the fact that wastewater treatment planning occurs on a large-scale basis in response to
known and/or anticipated regional growth trends, rather than in response to any single project, and the wastewater
82
could be treated at more than one facility. Therefore, the Project's impacts on wastewater treatment facilities are
also considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Final EIR at pp. 4.14-37, 2-68-69.)
AEA Modifications: As further discussed above in the finding on water treatment facility impacts, with
implementation of the identified project requirements and mitigation measures, impacts regarding water
treatment, water supply, and wastewater generation would be less than was projected in the new Draft EIR for the
project without the AEA Modifications. The Saddling Barn would maintain its current use, and as such would not
generate wastewater or require additional water supply over and above what was evaluated in the new Draft EIR.
No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts would result with
respect to water supply or wastewater generation as a result of the AEA Modifications. (Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Cumulative Impacts: Development of cumulative projects within the SJCWRP service area, including the
Project Site, would generate additional quantities of wastewater, depending on net increases in population, square
footage, and types and intensification of uses. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-53.) These projects would contribute to
the overall regional demand for w61stewater treatment service. (Id.) The CSDLAC has confirmed that the design
capacities of the Sanitation District's wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast
adopted by SCAG, which in turn is based on the City's general plan and other forecasts of SCAG's member
cities. The proposed Project is included within the City's growth forecast, as identified in the 1996 General Plan
Update. Thus, because the design capacity of the SJCWRP and JWPCP would expand parallel with projected
growth, and expansion of the SJCWRP and JWPCP have already been planned based on anticipated growth,
cumulative development would not exceed the capacity of the wastewater treatment system. This cumulative
impact is considered less than significant. (Jd.)
Project wastewater generation under the proposed Project (0.225 mgd) represents 2.0 percent of the
remaining capacity of the SJCWRP, 0.33 percent of the remaining permitted capacity at the JWPCP, and 3.26
percent of the remaining capacity at the WNWRP. (Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at p. 2-69.) The City
and the Project would continue to implement water conservation measures that would result in a decrease in
wastewater generation compared to existing projections, and each of the wastewater treatment plants would still
have excess capacity. Consequently, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to an impact on wastewater treatment. The cumulative impact of the Project would be less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-53.)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively require or result in the construction of new energy
production and/or transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (new Draft ElR at pp. 4.14-46, 54, Impacts 4.14-9 and 4.14-10.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new energy production and/or
transmission facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. (Jd.; Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for electricity, but would not
require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, the construction of which
could cause a significant environmental impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-46.) Compliance with the identified
project requirements would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (ld.) Implementation of the
proposed Project would increase the demand for natural gas, but would not require or result in the construction of
new gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental
impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.10-48.) Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure that this
impact would remain less than significant. (Id.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the use of electricity at the Project Site, to light,
heat, and air condition the new buildings, and parking areas. Using the larger total square footage numbers for the
Project before the AEA Modifications, the total annual electricity consumption by the proposed Project was
estimated to be approximately 25,177,297 kWh/year. Since the existing annual electricity consumption in the
City, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR (LSA 1996), is approximately 250 million kWh/year, the
83
additional electricity demand by the proposed Project would represent a 10 percent annual increase, for a total of
275,177,297 kWh/year. However, the SCE has provided a "will serve" letter indicating that it "will meet the
demand and will serve the project." (Id.)
SCE plans to invest $1 billion each of the next five years in its transmission and distribution systems
throughout its 50,000-square-mile service area. The upgrading of existing equipment would occur while SCE
accommodates significant customer growth. Over the period of its infrastructure project, SCE expects to add
45,000 to 50,000 new customers a year. SCE has applied to state and federal agencies for authorization to
complete several major transmission expansion projects over the next six to 10 years. (Id.) These projects will
help ensure adequate power flow and voltage for 13 million people while benefiting electricity customers in all
eleven states of the western power grid (SCE 2006, 2006a). (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-54-47.)
Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in electricity demand in the City that can be
met by SCE, it would comply with the energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the CCR, as required
by PR4.14E. (ld.) The following project requirement shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state,
or federal laws or regulations, or the Project's Specific Plan: "PR 4.14E All new buildings proposed as part of
the development shall comply with the provisions of Title 24 of the CCR with respect to energy conservation."
(Id.)
An adequate supply of electricity is anticipated to be available to serve the proposed Project, as evidenced
by SCE's will serve letter. Further, as described in PR 4.14E, the proposed Project shall comply with the
provisions of Title 24 of the CCR. As such, the proposed Project shall be designed in such a way as to conserve
energy. Also, because SCE is currently in the process of upgrading its transmission systems, it is anticipated that
the electricity demand generated by the proposed Project could be supplied without the need for additional
construction or expansion of energy facilities beyond that which was previously planned. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
The construction impacts anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed Project, including the
construction, relocation, or undergrounding of energy transmission and/or distribution lines are analyzed in
Section 4.2 (Air Quality), Section 4.9 (Noise), and Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic) of the new Draft EIR (in
addition, refer to Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) for the Project requirement addressing the undergrounding of utilities).
While significant unavoidable construction impacts would occur for air quality and noise as a result of
construction under the proposed Project, these impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible by the Project
requirements and mitigation measures detailed in those sections. Further, to minimize the potential disruption to
electrical service, which could occur as a result of construction activities, PR 4.14A requires that new utility lines
or temporary utility lines are constructed prior to the abandonment of the existing utility lines. As required by law,
all utility connections would be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Ordinances, and
Public Works standards to ensure an adequately sized and properly constructed electrical transmission and
conveyance system. All utilities for direct service to the development shall be installed underground except as
otherwise approved by the Director by precise plan of design. The owner or Developer is responsible to make the
necessary arrangements as required by the serving utilities for the installation of such facilities. For the purpose of
this Section, appurtenances and associated equipment such as but not limited to, surface mounted transformers,
pedestal mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets and concealed ducts in an underground system may be
terminated above ground. Further, implementation and extension of utility infrastructure would be fully funded
and constructed by the Developer in a manner that would minimize the potential for utility disruption. Therefore,
a less-than-significant impact would result, and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for natural gas, but would not require
or result in the construction of new gas production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could
cause a significant environmental impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.10-48.) Compliance with the identified project
requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. (ld.)
The Project-generated demand for natural gas would be approximately 2,688,960 ft3/day. (Id.)
84
The proposed Project would be served by new natural gas lines that would connect to an existing 6-inch,
medium pressure gas line serving the southern portion of the Project Site and located in West Huntington Drive.
As SCGC declares itself a "reactive" utility that will provide natural gas as customers request its services, SCGC
has indicated that an adequate supply of natural gas is currently available to serve the proposed Project, and that
the natural gas level of service provided to the surrounding area would not be impaired by the proposed Project
(Helms 2005; Shaw 2006). New natural gas lines to serve the Project Site would be located underground and
would be constructed in accordance with SCGC's policies and extension rules on file with the CPUC at the time
contractual agreements are made. Because the natural gas demand projected for the proposed Project would not
exceed available or planned supply, new infrastructure would not be required to serve the Project Site. Therefore,
this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
While significant unavoidable construction impacts would occur for air quality and noise as a result of
construction under the proposed Project, these impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible by the Project
requirements and mitigation measures detailed in those sections. Further, to minimize the potential disruption to
electrical service, which could occur as a result of construction activities, PR 4.14A requires that new utility lines
or temporary utility lines are constructed prior to the abandonment of the existing utility lines. As required by law,
all utility connections would be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Ordinances, and
Public Works standards to ensure an adequately sized and properly constructed electrical transmission and
conveyance system. Further, implementation and extension of utility infrastructure would be fully funded and
constructed by the Developer in a manner that would minimize the potential for utility disruption. Therefore, a
less-than-significant impact would result, and no mitigation is required. (Id.) .
AEA Modifications: Energy demand is based upon the type and size of the use. With the AEA
Modifications, the cinema/theater building and retail building would be reduced by approximately 22,000 square
feet in total compared to that studied in the new Draft EIR, which would require less energy demand. The
Saddling Barn would require minimal}ighting for nighttime illumination and would be lit in the same manner as
it is today. The Saddling Barn is considered part of the baseline condition because it is an existing use. The West
Parking Garage would be the same square footage and would retain the same number of parking stalls as that
evaluated in the new Draft EIR. However, because of the additional parking level, additional lighting would be
required for the West Parking Garage compared to that analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Therefore, energy
demands for the West Parking Garage would be slightly greater with the AEA Modifications, but would not
represent a substantial increase in lighting and energy demand. In addition, retail facilities require a greater
amount of lighting than parking garages, and the reduction in retail square footage (22,000 sf) would more than
offset the lighting required for one additional parking level in the West Parking Garage. No new significant
environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts would result with respect to energy
demand as a result of the AEA Modifications. Impacts would be less than the project conditions evaluated in the
new Draft EIR due to a reduction of overall square footage under the AEA Modifications. (Final EIR AEA at p.
31.)
Cumulative Impacts: As indicated in the City's General Plan, power supplies for the City are projected to
be adequate through the Gencral Plan planning horizon of 2015. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-54.) In addition, as
new projects are developed, energy conservation measures are employed. For example, all new projects
constructed in California are required to conform to the energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the
CCR, and many individual projects include other energy conservation.
SCE is a private utility that generates its own electricity and independently supplies the City. SCE has
stated that electricity would be available to supply energy to the City at full implementation of the City's General
Plan Update, and has also stated that sufficient energy could be provided to serve the proposed Project. SCE plans
to invest $1 billion each of the next five years in its transmission and distribution systems throughout its 50,000-
square-mile service area. The upgrading of existing equipment would occur while SCE accommodates significant
customer growth. Over the period of its infrastructure project, SCE expects to add 45,000 to 50,000 new
customers a year. SCE has applied to state and federal agencies for authorization to complete several major
transmission expansion projects over the next six to 10 years. These projects will help ensure adequate power
85
flow and voltage for 13 million people while benefiting electricity customers in all eleven states of the westem
power grid (SCE 2006, 2006a). (Id.)
Because SCE has determined that it is able to meet all future projected demands, there will be no
significant cumulative impacts in terms of either supply or a potential need for added facilities. Therefore, the
cumulative impact is less than significant. The proposed Project's contribution with respect to electricity supplies
or the need for additional facilities is not cumulatively considerable because SCE has determined that it would be
able to serve the proposed Project. This is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
With regard to natural gas, the proposed Project would also result in permanent and continued use of this
resource. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-55.) The project site is currently served by existing infrastructure that conveys
gas from the SCGC. SCGC has stated that it can supply natural gas without jeopardizing other service
commitments. Because SCGC has stated that demand projections are continuously updated, and SCGC's system
has ample capacity to ensure continued levels of service to all customers within the region, supplying the Project
Site with additional natural gas would not compromise its existing and projected service commitments (Colvin
2006). The cumulative impact related to the supply of natural gas and to the need for additional or expanded
facilities is less than significant, and the proposed Project's contribution to demand would not be cumulatively
considerable. This is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively encourage the wasteful or inefficient use of
energy? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.14-48, 54, Impact 4.14-11.)
Finding: The proposed Project would not encourage the wasteful or inefficient use of energy. (Id.; Final EIR
AEA at p. 31.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful or inefficient use of energy
by the proposed project. Compliance with the identified project requirements would ensure that this impact would
remain less than significant.As discussed in the Regulatory Framework section of the new Draft EIR and as
required by PR 4.14E, all new buildings are required to conform to the energy conservation standards specified in
CCR Title 24. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-49.) In order to conform to CCR Title 24, efficient energy use would be
enforced and would ensure that a less-than-significant impact remains with respect to the wasteful or unnecessary
use of energy. Further, additional measures to increase energy efficiency have been required. (Final EIR, p. 4-
450-451). See also the Cumulative Impacts discussion under the previous impact analysis of these findings. Any
related impacts would be less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
SECTION III
FINDINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVELS
The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR that will avoid or
substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant
level are set out in the EIR and summarized below.
A. Aesthetics:
Impact: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? In specific, would implementation of the proposed project result in new sources of
increased daytime glare? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.1-38, Impact 4.1-5)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at 7-11.)
86
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.1-5 (MMRP at p. 3-20.)
Explanation: The Grandstand structure was originally painted its green color in order to reduce glare. (new Draft
EIR at p.4.1-38.) Also, the existing Saddling Barn, which is to be relocated, is constructed of non-reflective
surfaces. (Final EIR AEA at p.IO.) While daytime glare is currently at a minimum in the Specific Plan Area, glare
could be produced by the increased amount of surface area of the proposed commercial and retail structures, as
well as the proposed Simulcast Center, which could reflect or concentrate sunlight and result in a potentially
significant impact. However, design features required by MM 4.1-5, including the use of non-reflective
textured surfaces on building exteriors (including the parking structures), as well as avoidance of the use of
reflective glass, would reduce impacts to off-site uses resulting from daytime glare from new development. (Id.)
Implementation of MM 4.1-5 would reduce impacts from daytime glare to a less-than-significant level by
eliminating or minimizing increased glare by the use of non-reflective glass and non-reflective textured surfaces
in the proposed development. (ld.; Final EIR AEA at p.1 0.)
AEA Modifications: Under the AEA Modifications, the West Parking Garage would increase in height to
51.6 feet (at the top of the parapet wall) with elevator towers extending to 65.6 feel. However, the West Parking
Garage would be located on a smaller building footprint as a result of the northern portion of the parking garage
moving to the south to accommodate the relocated cinema/theater building. The southern limit of the parking
structure would remain in the location examined in the new Draft EIR. The elevator towers associated with the
West Parking Garage would reach a height of 65.6 feet, approximately 19 feet shorter than the roofline of the
Grandstand. The cinema/theater building and one retail building would become smaller. Impacts associated with
daytime glare would similarly be reduced by implementation of MM 4.1-5 and less than significant impacts
would occur in relation to daytime glare under the AEA modifications. (Final EIR AEA at p.1 0.)
Cumulative Impacts: The City of Arcadia is largely built out and contains numerous existing sources of
daytime glare. Cumulative development within the surrounding areas could result in some increase in daytime
glare, as specific building materials and configurations are uncertain. However, potential increases in glare are
likely to be minor and consistent with the existing built environment due to limited development potential and
existing City regulations. Consequently, cumulative daytime glare within the surrounding area would be less than
significant. As implementation of the proposed Project would include mitigation to reduce glare, the proposed
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts
associated with daytime glare would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. (Draft
EIR at p. 4.1-38.)
B. Biological Resources
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations; or by the CDFG; or by the USFWS? In specific, would construction of the proposed project result in
the loss of nesting habitat for migratory avian species of special concern and rap tors? Also in specific, would the
proposed 3.5-acre water feature associated with the proposed project result in a substantially adverse effect on
special-status avian species populations? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.3-17, Impact 4.3-1, Impact 4.3-2)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 14-15.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.3-I(a), MM 4.3-I(b); see also MM 4.4-7(a) through MM 4.4-7(c). (MMRP at pp.
3-33-34.)
Explanation:
Nesting Habitat: Construction of the proposed Project could result in the loss of nesting habitat for
migratory avian species of special concern and raptors. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
However, compliance with the identified project requirement and implementation of mitigation measures
87
MM 4.3-I(a) and MM 4.3-I(b) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.3-
15.)
Migratory avian species that may use portions of the site for nesting during their breeding season are
protected under the MBT A. Construction-related activities that may include, but are not necessarily limited to,
building demolition, grading, materials laydown, access and infrastructure improvements, and building
construction, could result in the direct disturbance of nesting migratory species protected under the MBT A. Based
on the current design of the proposed Project and on the biological surveys conducted of the area in which
development would occur, up to 290 trees would be removed and/or relocated as a result of implementation of the
proposed Project. (Id. at pp. 4.3-15-16.) In addition, certain native birds, including finches, sparrows, and other
migratory birds were observed nesting in the existing structures located in the Paddock Gardens, notably the
Saddling Barn. (ld. at p. 4.3-18.) The removal of existing trees and/or structures within the Specific Plan Area
may result in the direct disturbance of these species and/or their nests. (ld.)
In addition to the potential direct disturbance of a particular nest or species of bird, construction activities
could indirectly cause displacement of some wildlife to other less preferred habitat areas, which could result in
reduced reproductive success in local wildlife populations. However, the wildlife that could be disturbed by
construction or operation of the proposed Project are common and widely distributed throughout the area, and any
indirect disturbance at the proposed Project site would have a negligible impact on the availability of breeding
locations and subsequent populations of the species throughout the region. However, as mentioned above, the
MBT A provides for the protection of migratory birds, including the non-permitted take of migratory birds.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 (a) and MM 4.3-1 (b) would reduce this potentially significant
impact to a less-than-significant level by ensuring that surveys for MBT A species are performed during the
appropriate time of year and, if necessary, construction buffer zones are established to protect nesting MBT A
species. (ld.)
Water Feature and Avian Species: The proposed 3.5-acre water feature associated with the proposed
Project would not result in a substantially adverse effect on special-status avian species populations. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.3-17.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
The construction of the 3.5-acre water feature at the southern end of the development area would
potentially attract avian species similar to those species observed at the Los Angeles Arboretum, such as Canada
goose, Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata), and Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos). However, certain design
features, including a central fountain, multiple small waterfalls, and steep sides with a bare-ground boundary
around the water feature would likely limit the number of avian species utilizing the water feature due to
increased turbidity of the water and limited access between the water's edge and the shore. The edges of the water
feature would be regularly maintained, in part to control potential mosquito and black fly populations. As part of
this maintenance, vegetation along the water feature, both in the water and out, would regularly be removed,
which would also limit the use of these areas as potential breeding, nesting, and/or foraging locations for
waterfowl. In addition, the bottom of the water feature would be lined with an impervious material, which would
further limit the establishment of vegetation. (Id.) The water feature, which is too large to allow the use of
chlorine, ozone, or other chemicals for maintenance of water quality, would be stocked with various fish to aid in
the control of aquatic insects and algae. These fish may provide a limited food source for avian species. However,
due to certain design features of the water feature and project requirement PR 4.6F, such as the addition of several
ornamental rocks that would serve as shelter for any stocked fish, the inclusion of a central fountain, multiple
small waterfalls, and steep sides with a bare-ground boundary around the water feature, would limit the number of
avian species utilizing the water feature due to the turbidity of the water and limited access between the water's
edge and the shore. (Id.; Final EIR RTC, Topical Response 13 (Water Feature)). Further, while refuse containers
and outdoor areas that may be used for eating could present additional foraging opportunities for waterfowl and
other avian species, all refuse containers would be covered and disposed of regularly, as required by PR 4.2B, and
outdoor eating areas would be regularly cleaned by restaurant staff or on-site staff of the proposed Project to limit
potential foraging opportunities, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed water feature. (Id. at pp. 4.3-17.) In
general, the proposed water feature may provide an additional area for avian species, especially waterfowl, to
88
congregate; however, the water feature would represent a negligible increase in the number and acreage of
regional freshwater locations, and it would not represent a valuable habitat for nesting, breeding, or foraging. (Id.)
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: Construction activities associated with the AEA Modifications, as with the rest of
the proposed Project, could result in the direct disturbance of nesting migratory species protected under the
MBTA, but no additional trees would be removed as a result of the AEA Modifications. (Final EIR AEA at pp.
14-15.) Therefore, this impact would be the same as under the proposed Project evaluated in the new Draft EIR.
Also, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-I(a) and MM 4.3-I(b) requires that surveys for MBTA
species are performed during the appropriate time of year and, if necessary, construction buffer zones would be
established to protect nesting MBT A species. Nonetheless, relocation activities could result in unanticipated
impacts to trees in the Paddock Gardens area. Mitigation measures MM 4.4-7(a) through MM 4.4-7(c) require
that: (I) a qualified arborist evaluates, develops, and supervises the construction of buffers or other measures or
procedures to protect the mature trees; (2) any healthy mature trees that are to be moved as a result of demolition
of the existing Saddling Barn and construction of the replacement Saddling Barn (or, in this case, relocation of the
existing Saddling Barn to thc site of the replacement Saddling Barn, and demolition of the Jockeys Room, entry
bay, and south ticket gates) would be boxed and reused; and (3) a qualified historic landscape architect develops a
Landscape Maintenance Plan for the Paddock Gardens Area that will include an inventory of mature plailtings
and specific recommendations for their maintenance. No new significant environmental impacts or substantially
more severe environmental impacts associated with removal of trees and/or impacts to nesting birds protected
under MBT A would result from inclusion of the AEA Modifications in the proposed Project, compared to the
project conditions without thc AEA Modifications analyzed in the Draft EIR. (Id. at p. 15.)
Cumulative Impacts: With respect to nesting birds, the MBT A fully protects migratory avian species
during the breeding season by the establishment of a federal prohibition. Unless otherwise permitted by
regulations, it is unlawful to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for
sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation,
transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment,
transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of
this Convention... for the protection of migratory birds...or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." (16 U.S.C.
703) (new Draft EIR at p. 4.3-19.) Therefore, assuming that other development complies with the law established
by the MBT A, cumulative impacts to nesting migratory birds would be considered less than significant. Further,
compliance by the Developer with the MBTA, including mitigation measures MM 4.3-I(a) and MM 4.3-I(b),
which requires surveys for nesting species and a restriction on construction activities if nests are found during the
breeding season, would ensure that the Project's contribution to the cumulative impact would not be cumulatively
considerable and would also be considered less than significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 14-15.) See also
findings above regarding the MBT A and nesting birds under the Project with the AEA Modifications.
The construction of a 3.5-acre water feature may attract additional waterfowl and other avian species to
the proposed Project area. The species that would likely utilize the proposed water feature would be similar to
those species that are present at the Los Angeles County Arboretum, located west of the Specific Plan Area. In
general, the proposed water feature may provide an additional area for avian species, especially waterfowl, to
congregate; however, the water feature would represent a negligible increase in the number and acreage of
regional freshwater locations, and it would not represent a valuable habitat for nesting, breeding, or foraging. (Id.)
Further, many of the design elements of the water feature, such as a central fountain, multiple small waterfalls,
and steep sides with a bare-ground boundary would likely limit the number of avian species utilizing the water
feature due to increased turbidity of the water and limited access between the water's edge and the shore. (Id.)
Therefore, the Project's contribution to this impact would not be considered cumulatively considerable under the
geographical context outlined above, and impacts would be considered less than significant. (Id.)
Similar to the regulations and policies in place with respect to nesting birds, Section 1600 et seq. of the
Fish and Game Code regulates activities involving watercourses within the State of California. Assuming that
other development within the geographical context outlined above complies with Fish and Game Code
89
requirements, cumulative impacts to riparian habitat or vegetation would be considered less than significant.
Further, implementation of PR 4.3A, which requires the submission of a Notification of Lake or Streambed
Alteration form, and compliance with Fish and Game Code as it applies to the proposed Project, would ensure
that the Project's contribution to cumulative conditions would not be cumulatively considerable by eliminating or
minimizing the potential impact to riparian habitat and would be considered less than significant. (ld.)
C. Cultural Resources
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would
implementation of the Simulcast Center result in a change to the interior of a contributing element of the Santa
Anita Park Historic District (e.g., the Grandstand structure)? In specific, would implementation of the Simulcast
Center result in a change to the interior of a contributing element of the Santa Anita Park Historic District (e.g.,
the Grandstand structure)? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87, 92, Impact 4.4-3.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.4-68, -79-80, -87-89,-92; Final EIR pp. 4-33 through 4-34; 2nd Additional
Responses to Comments pp. 40 and 43-44.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-3(a), MM 4.4-3(b), MM 4.4-3(c), MM 4.4-3(d), MM 4.4-5, MM 4.4-6, MM 4.4-
7(a), MM 4.4-7(b), MM 4.4-7(c), MM 4.4-8 (MMRP at pp. 3-39-44.)
Explanation:
Simulcast Center: Implementation of the Simulcast Center would result in a change to the interior of a
contributing element of the Santa Anita Park Historic District (e.g., the Grandstand structure). (new Draft EIR at
p. 4.4-61-68.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation
measures MM 4.4-3(a) through MM 4.4-3(d) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.)
As described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of the new Draft E1R, the proposed development includes
the addition of an approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center within the 1938 segment (or western portion) of the
existing Grandstand structure. The Simulcast facility consolidates wagering and entertainment uses currently
scattered throughout the Grandstand and would be operated both off-season and during the live racing season at
Santa Anita Park. In addition to supporting more efficient operations, the Simulcast Center would provide
restaurant and entertainment services and facilities that meet current patron expectations. The area to be
reconfigured is within the 1938 segment of the Grandstand building, west of the main entrance. (Id.)
Throughout the 20th century, recreation and sport merged under the overarching umbrella of
entertainment. "Paralleling Southern California's dominance as a center for broadcast technology and production,
Santa Anita pioneered broadcast facilities integrated within the park. Since its opening Santa Anita Park's
broadcast facilities have been housed in state-of-the-art facilities, with radio and television capabilities."
(Registration Form, Section 8, Page 8). (Id.) The purpose of the Simulcast Center is to continue this tradition by
incorporating innovative applications of satellite and electronic media transfer of real-time simulcasts (both from
the facility and into the facility) from a network of racing venues from across the U.S. and around the world. (Id.)
The first public level of the proposed Simulcast Center would be located in the ground floor level of the
Grandstand, extending under the lower approximately fifteen rows of Grandstand seating, and would be
completely concealed by this seating. There is also a lower service area not visible or accessible from the track or
other public areas. The north-facing fa,ade of the upper level of the proposed Simulcast Center would be set back
substantially from the first floor to accommodate Grandstand seating and circulation. The glass wall would begin
at the inner-side short wall that defines the main cross-aisle of the Grandstand. The majority of this upper fa,ade
would be visually transparent (patrons could look out to the track through large windows), reducing its apparent
mass, and providing views to the track and mountains beyond, similar to those currently experienced from the
Grandstand seating in this area. (Id.)
90
In terms of the Grandstand's interior, the proposed Simulcast Center's access would occur through a
single entryway using the Art Deco portal of the South fa9ade. During non-racing days, access to the rest of the
Grandstand segments (to the east and west) would be blocked off with temporary barriers. Construction of the
Simulcast Center requires that the existing original arched passageways that provide access from the betting hall
to the track area would be permanently closed off with the arches removed. The circulation pattern to and from
the track, through the first level of the Grandstand as illustrated by Figure 4.4-7 (Grandstand Interior Circulation)
in the new Draft EIR, will be retained in the 1934 and 1948 segments. The interior floor area of the Grandstand,
as well as the space of the 1959 addition, would be converted to the Simulcast Center use. (Id.)
The 1938 Grandstand wing proposed as the location for the Simulcast Center has been significantly
altered over the years. The 1934 and 1938 segments of the interior of the Grandstand have lost architectural
integrity due to layers of alterations. Field observations reveal that alterations to portions of the 1938 interior
occurred when the 1959 "coffee shop" addition was constructed. Portions of the original south walls of the main
floor of the Grandstand, along with betting windows, were reconfigured to accommodate the 1959 addition. The
dropped ceilings, fluorescent lighting coves, and decorative fixtures are later alterations installed in 1959 or later,
after the Historic District's period of significance. The only original feature is the series of arched openings with
plaster finishes along the n0l1h wall that allow passage from the interior under the Grandstand seating out to the
track level. (Id.)
The elements in the 1938 segment to be removed include the original 1938 arched openings, the betting
windows (relocated in 1959), dropped ceiling (1959), and the mezzanine system. While the betting windows
could be from the period of significance, they are no longer in their original location and appear to have been
modified (windows altered). The arched passageways that are aligned with the Art Deco entry portal and lead to
the trackside, and date from the 1938 period of construction, will also be demolished. There is no evidence of
significant workmanship in any of the interior elements of the Grandstand. Further, the arched passageways and
betting booths are executed in a typical manner and are not exceptional or unusual. (Id.)
A portion of the betting windows could be preserved and located elsewhere in the Grandstand although
they would have no functional use as betting continues to be automated and consolidated. The preponderance of
original character-defining features of the Grandstand interior have been lost over the decades as a result of the
many layers of alterations that were made to support the evolving functional needs of racing patrons and
management, and the significant 1959 remodel of this space. (Id.)
In terms of interior volume, the Simulcast Center will also result in reconfiguration of the interior spaces
of both floors of the 1959 addition's displaced office uses. This addition was constructed after the Historic
District's period of significance. On the uppermost floor of the 1938 Grandstand wing, existing elements are
primarily modifications made during or after the 1959 construction. The betting booths date from this period as
does this floor's archway system (a framed out, hollow, set of arches) and dropped ceiling system. A mezzanine
area is located between the first and second floors. Although mezzanines were included in the original 1938
design, this system was modified and consolidated into the 1959 coffee shop addition and later converted to office
spaces. All interior features at the uppermost interior level will be removed; however, all of the interior elements
were added in the 1959 remodel and later after the Historic District's period of significance, and none of these
elements are historic. (Id.)
At the point where the 1934 and 1938 segments meet, is a walkway to a small box, with a cupola, perched
under the roof at the front. This was Dr. Charles Strub's personal box and will be retained. The westernmost and
most recent segment of the Grandstand will remain as bleacher seating. (Id.)
The existing Grandstand seats are not original historic fabric. The configuration as risers is original. The
upper rows of seating and concrete risers will be removed and the area reconfigured to accommodate
entertainment functions related to the new Simulcast Center. As with movie theaters, seating typologies and
patron expectations have changed over the decades. The proportion and mix of seating types also changes over
time. The original program called for bleacher seating in the Grandstand; however, this type of seating is
substandard by today's criteria. (Id.)
91
Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation indicates that the historic
purpose of the property be retained. The historic use of the National Register eligible Santa Anita Park Historic
District is as a horse racing venue and as noted in the Registration Form, "since its opening Santa Anita Park's
broadcast facilities have been housed in state-of-the-art facilities, with radio and television capabilities." In
addition, Dr. Strub and thc Park's founders developed a facility that was well designed, convenient and
comfortable and that catercd to the entertainment and service needs of patrons. The combination of the
entertainment and recreational experience of horse racing is supported by today's state-of-the-art capabilities that
use satellite and electronic transmission facilities. The Simulcast Center continues this historic function. The
Simulcast Center is an updated version of horse racing facilities providing seating and viewing spaces as well as
using state-of-the-art satellite and electronic technology to enhance the Thoroughbred horse racing experience.
(ld.)
The interior of the 1938 section of the Grandstand that was extensively remodeled in 1959, outside of the
period of significance, will be reconfigured to accommodate this updated technology/entertainment use. This
remodeled interior segment of the 1938 Grandstand segment has a very low level of architectural integrity. Few
original features remain since most of the 1938 Grandstand features were removed in the 1959 remodel. These
extensive interior alterations included removal of original features and finishes, relocation of betting booths and
drop ceilings, and additions of new finishes, materials, and decorative fixtures. Only the passage archways and a
short segment of adjacent wall with original plaster finishes remain as historic fabric in their original location on
the first floor. The loss of the upper rows of Grandstand seating will not impact the visible form of the second
floor ceiling, as this "complementary volume" to the seating above is not visible above the ceiling and, thus, has
not been expressed. Other scctions of the Grandstand retain this volume. Based on images from the 1930s, it
appears that ceilings obscured this complementary volume prior to the 1959 drop ceiling addition. Rather than an
exposed cavernous volume, a ceiling has defined the Grandstand interior since its construction. (ld.)
Most of the interior of the Grandstand area proposed for the Simulcast Center features materials, finishes,
and fixtures that are from outside of the period of significance. Since they are not from the period of significance,
their removal is not an adverse impact. (ld)
Original historic fabric is limited to the sets of arched passageways on the north side and some plaster
finishes in the interior. At the exterior of the upper level of the Simulcast Center, removal of a portion of the
Grandstand seating in the are;} located above the main aisle will be required. These bleacher seats are not original
historic fabric, but the configllration as bleacher seating is original. However, the location will continue to be used
for seating. The main cross aisle, that runs the full length of the Grandstand, will remain. The wall of the
Simulcast Center will rise upward at the inner wall of the cross aisle. The north wall at this upper level will
overlook the track, and will consist of large, glazed walls. With this location, the Simulcast Center will be visually
recessed toward the back of the Grandstand (unlike the Frontrunners restaurant that hangs over the main cross
aisle). The west and east walls of the Simulcast Center will likely be opaque. A variety of seating configurations
and types, matching the level of comfort expected by today's racing patrons, will be provided in this area. The
roof of the structure of the new Simulcast Center will be separated from the track's roof, allowing for the
structural grid of the original Grandstand roof and its overhang to remain exposed. (ld.)
The design of the Simulcast Center will be inserted within the Grandstand and set back well under the
roof overhang with a transparcnt north wall. This location is adjacent to kitchen and service areas that were added
during the 1959 remodel. The proposed design changes will not detract from the historic functions or appearance.
The Grandstand roofs truss system and structural columns will remain intact. The overarching sweep of the roof
structure will not be impacted. Risers will be removed to create the space needed for a full height floor at the
Grandstand's second level. The loss of the risers will not be visible from the first floor level since there has been a
ceiling in place for decades. This area's location, inserted behind the cross-aisle and under the roof, limits the
alteration to demolition of a portion of risers. In the future, the walls of this addition could be removed and the
riser form rebuilt to again accommodate bleacher seating. (ld.)
92
The development of the Simulcast Center would not affect the physical setting and relationship of the
Grandstand in terms of the Track and Infield system and would be consistent with Standards 9 and 10 of the
Secretary of Interior's Standards, and only limited original materials are extant. The workmanship of the original
structural and roof systems will not be impacted by the Simulcast Center, and the Grandstand's historic
appearance will not be compromised by the addition of the Simulcast Center. When viewed from the north, the
Grandstand will be different because of the new facility; however, the historic sweep of the roof, and the historic
massing and volume of the Grandstand are not changed. While the walls of the Simulcast Center may be
distinguishable, like the press box and Clubhouse restaurants are, it will not be as prominent as Frontrunners
Restaurant since the proposed element is set back behind the main cross aisle. The Simulcast Center is an added
amenity that strengthens the association to the historic use of the facility as a Thoroughbred horse racing track.
Therefore, insertion of the Simulcast Center would conform to Standard 5, Standard 6, and Standard 7. As there
are no archeological features associated with the interior of the Grandstand, Standard 8 would not be applicable to
the Simulcast Center. (Id.)
The proposed Project rehabilitates a portion of the Grandstand from one type of Grandstand seating
(bleacher-style seating) to another type of seating (club seating, which is consistent with a modern sports and
entertainment complex) and introduces new technologies for viewing racing (satellite and electronic technologies
for viewing races at other tracks, in addition to replays, close-ups, and analysis of races held at Santa Anita Park).
The historic use of the Grandstand as a place for viewing racing will continue. Some physical modifications will
be made to the Grandstand, as would occur in any project that would reuse or adapt the structure to another use.
The proposed rehabilitation has limited impact to historic features and finishes since most interior fixtures and
finishes are not from the period of significance. While modifications will be made to the space to change it from
exclusively bleacher seating into club seating, these changes do not add conjectural features or mimic elements
from another period or building. Therefore, the insertion of the Simulcast Center into the Grandstands would
conform to the Secretary of Interior's Standard 2, Standard 3, and Standard 4. (Id.)
With respect to the integrity of the Historic District, and how that might be affected by insertion of the
Simulcast Center into the Grandstand, the seven aspects of integrity that must be evaluated. These include:
location; design; setting; materials; workmanship; feeling; and association. (Id.)
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event
occurred. The consolidation of functions into a Simulcast Center will not diminish the location of the Grandstand.
The Simulcast Center provides activities that support the core racing function of the Grandstand facility. The
relationship between the Grandstand and the Track and Paddock Areas will not be impacted. (ld.)
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
The proposed alterations will change a small section of the Grandstand exterior. The Grandstand has historically
evolved to accommodate enlargement and adaptations supporting patrons' needs with additions. The Simulcast
Center removes a small portion of trackside seating and replaces it with another type of seating and
accommodation. The design of the Simulcast Center, which is recessed behind the cross aisle and provides a
transparent north wall, leaving the existing roof overhang untouched, does not diminish the original design
features of the Grandstand. One segment of bleachers (the principal original seating form) is retained in the 1948
wing. The sweep of the roof and Grandstand as it cants slightly to the north at its west end remains intact. The
interior design of the 1938 Grandstand segment has undergone many layers of alterations, including the major
1959 remodel, after the period of significance. The insertion of the Simulcast Center will result in some remnant
arched passages being removed. These features, along with the relocated (and slightly altered) betting windows,
are the only elements of original character-defining features extant. Since the interior space has been so altered,
most of the lost features are outside the period and loss of some features does not create a significant impact. (Id.)
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property, in terms of the character of the place in which
the property played its historic role. The Simulcast Center, located within the Grandstand, will not impact the
setting of the Grandstand relative to the Track or Paddock Gardens. Its location was chosen to support the historic
use oriented to the setting of the track and the iconic view beyond. (ld)
93
Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular configuration to form a historic property. No significant materials will be impacted by
introduction of the Simulcast Center. One segment of the concrete bleacher foundation will be removed as will
the remnant arched passageway in the 1938 segment. The walls and roof of the Grandstand will not be impacted.
(Id.)
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. "It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a
building." There is no exceptional workmanship evidenced in the elements that are proposed to be removed. (Id.)
Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. "It
results from the presences of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character." The
feeling of the Grandstand, and the essence of Santa Anita Park, is communicated through the focal point of the
Racetrack and its backdrop view of palm trees silhouetted by the San Gabriel Mountains. The introduction of the
Simulcast Center into the Grandstand does not detract from the historic feeling of the Grandstand itself, but rather
provides another alternative for viewing racing with its complementary activities. A patron standing anywhere in
the Grandstand will experience the feeling of the past communicated through the form of the structure and
expressed through elements such as the overhang and sweep of the roof with its truss structure. (ld.)
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. "A
property retains association if it is the place where the event of activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to
convey that relationship to an observer." The addition of the Simulcast Center does not detract from the
association of the Grandstand with its racing history. The purpose of the Simulcast Center is to provide patrons
with entertainment opportunities to attract them to continue to support Santa Anita Park's historic purpose, the
ongoing racing of Thoroughbred horses. The ongoing association with horse racing by supporting racing
economics is geared towards new history being made at Santa Anita Park. (Id.)
Placement of the Simulcast Center within the Grandstand will not impact any significant original interior
spaces or finishes since the Grandstand interior has undergone many alterations, including an extensive 1959
addition and interior remodel, and only limited areas of original finishes remain. A portion of the Grandstand
trackside will be altered with risers removed and creation of an enclosed full-height second floor consolidating
specialized simulcast and wagering facilities. This addition will be designed so that its roof is set below the main
roof of the Grandstand, thus not impacting the truss roof system. Its location behind the cross-aisle and under the
exposed ceiling limits alterations to a discreet portion of risers to be removed for a recessed area towards the back
of the Grandstand. In the future, this addition could be removed and the riser form rebuilt. (Id.)
Mitigation measures MM 4.4-3(a)-(d) shall be implemented to mitigate potential adverse impacts that
could occur with the insertion of the Simulcast Center into the Grandstand. (Id.)
CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines shall generally be considered to have mitigated the impact on a historic structure to a less-than-
significant level. Mitigation measure MM 4.4-3(a) requires that any changes to the Grandstand as a result of the
Simulcast Center would comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Mitigation measures MM 4.4-3(b)
and MM 4.4-3(c) provide supplemental measures to assist the Developer of the Simulcast Center to meet these
standards, while MM 4.4-3(d) provides measures for compliance with the HABS/HAER and National Park
Service standards. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed
Project to protect the character-defining features of the Grandstand, the potential for substantial adverse change to
the Grandstand, and the Grandstand features mentioned above, would not occur, and therefore, this impact would
be considered less than significant with respect to the integrity of the Santa Anita Park Historic District. (Id.)
The cumulative context for impacts to the interior of the Grandstand (as a result of development of the
Simulcast Center) is the City given that the Grandstand is a historic resource. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-88). The
proposed modifications to the Grandstand would be completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and Guidelines. While the insertion of the Simulcast Center will result in the removal of
94
interior elements from the Grandstand, these interior features are typical of the period, and are not character
defining, unlike the exterior's significant modern architectural design. Compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior's standards and guidelines is optional, not mandatory, and, further, the City does not have a Historic
Preservation Ordinance or another discretionary mechanism to require that impacts are mitigated to a less-than-
significant level, therefore the cumulative impact is significant. With implementation of project identified
mitigation measures MM 4.4-3(a) through MM 4.4-3(d), removal of these interior elements are considered a less-
than-significant impact. Modifications to a contributing resource of a historic district that does not result in an
adverse impact would not create a cumulatively considerable impact with regard to other historic resources within
the City. Further the modification of the Grandstand would not result in the diminishment of the significance of
the Historic District or in the removal from eligibility on the NRHP or from listing in the CRHR. Therefore, the
Project-related cumulative impact would be less than significant. (ld.)
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would development
in the Commercial Entertainment zone result in a substantial adverse change to the Santa Anita Park Historic
District? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87, 92, Impact 4.4-5)
Finding: The impact of the proposed development in the Commercial Entertainment zone would result in a less
than significant impact on the Santa Anita Park Historic District. To further reduce the less-than-significant
impact, the new construction would be designed to be compatible with, but distinctive from, the Historic District,
by implementing mitigation measure MM 4.4-5. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.4-87-89,-92; Final EIR pp. 4-26 - 4-37;
Final EIR AEA pp. 16-20, MMRP p. 3-41.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-5 (MMRP at p. 3-31 and pp. 3-41.)
Explanation:
Commercial Entertainment Zone: Development in the Commercial Entertainment zone would not result
in a substantial adverse change to the Santa Anita Park Historic District. This is considered a less-than-significant
impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-5 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact.
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-70.)
(a) Commercial Entertainment Uses: The proposed Project would develop a 806,405 sf commercial
center arranged along a new, pedestrian-oriented street to be constructed on an 85-acre portion of the southern
parking lot of the property. (/d.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 1-2; ADR.) Also included are two new parking structures
and surface parking. An internal ring road, encircling the southern perimeter of the development, would be
connected to Huntington Drive at Holly Avenue at the southernmost end of this area, at the existing Gate 8 on the
west, and at Gate 4 (Centennial Way) on the east. The area between this new ring road and Huntington Drive will
remain open-space and portions of the perimeter will be improved with a landscape buffer and sidewalk. To the
north of the ring road will be a 7.5-acre open space area with a 3.5-acre decorative, passive, water feature. The
water feature will be accented by small-scale restaurants, cafes, and commercial uses. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-
70.)
The main portion of the 85-acre commercial entertainment center will be organized around a central,
north/south pedestrian boulevard that connects the water feature on the south to the existing Paddock Area and
Grandstand to the north. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-77-79.) The axis is designed and proportioned as a small town
Main Street with pedestrian-scaled furnishings and amenities. Building fa~ades will vary in height from 30 to
55 feet, or one to two stories, all of which will be lower in height than the existing Grandstand. Unoccupied
architectural features, such as spires and domes, could reach 67 feet while flagpoles could reach 85 feet (the
height of the existing Grandstand structure). A series of landscaped plazas and intersections will be located at
intervals along Main Street. A fu!l-scale, wireless electric trolley would travel on fixed rails along this Main
Street. (Id.)
Behind the buildings of Main Street will be two parking garages. The larger parking garage (ground plus
three levels, approximately 51.6 feet high with the parapet) will be located to the west and behind the buildings on
95
Main Street, while a smaller parking garage (ground plus one level, approximately 20 feet high with parapet) is
planned to the east and behind some of the Main Street buildings. Two surface parking areas are also located to
the east of the buildings of Main Street. (Id. and AEA, p.2)
The south parking lot is the most appropriate location for elements of a project that proposes to add new
structures. None of the elements that are contributing to the Historic District is located on the south parking lot.
Thus, new structures could be built without any negative impact on the Historic District's contributing resources.
In addition, one of the historic functions of the south parking lot was the accommodation of structures during the
period when the site was used as an Assembly Camp and military facility. Portions of the south parking lot have
been parceled off and currently support other uses, such as the medical office buildings and Westfield Santa
Anita. Construction of these new structures for the proposed commercial development is additive and in theory
reversible: the new buildings in this area could be removed in the future without any impact to the Historic
District's contributing resources. (ld.)
Planning and operation of the proposed Project relies heavily upon the continuation of the historic use of
Santa Anita Park as a Thoroughbred racing track. The purpose of the proposed adaptive reuse is to "create a
development with a vibrant outdoor 'Main Street' ambience that provides numerous, high-quality retail, dining,
and entertainment venues such that visitors will be attracted to the Santa Anita Racetrack throughout the year" as
well as to "create a pedestrian-oriented commercial center with an emphasis on an open space network of
landscaped streets, sidewalks, paseos, promenades, and public space that forms an important gathering place for
the Arcadia community." In addition, the proposed Project intends to "provide an expanded economic base for the
City that maximizes property and sales tax revenue." (Id.)
The proposed commercial center, as was Santa Anita Park itself, is based on a typical California
entertainment concept that combines indoor and outdoor experiences. Visitors will enter the facility within the
former parking area and move along the network of landscaped streets and nodes approaching the massive
Grandstand structure located to the north, with the Paddock Area in the Grandstand's foreground and the San
Gabriel Mountains beyond. Visitors can also avail themselves of indoor spaces and commercial uses within the
proposed development, as well as within the Grandstand and Clubhouse facilities of the Racetrack component.
(Id.)
New construction for the Project will be set back from Huntington Drive with an open space buffer area.
The open space areas at the south and southeast, known as Parking Area C, will be used for additional parking
during peak racing season events. The height for the proposed buildings in the development is limited by
proposed Specific Plan zoning regulations to one to two stories tall, ranging from approximately 30 to 55 feet,
substantially lower than the 85-foot Grandstand building. None of the relationships between the various
contributing resources of the Historic District will be impacted by the new commercial entertainment project
(except for the extension of the Paddock Gardens). The design concept for the new structures envisions a variety
of architectural styles that will relate to the existing architecture and cultural history of the site and will evoke the
commercial architecture of surrounding communities. Since the buildings are smaller in scale compared to the
Grandstand, the use of a mix of architectural styles, even those with historic references, can be distinguished from
the 1930s designs of the Grandstand and Clubhouse (as well as from the rural appearance of the barns and
stables). Taller elements, ine\uding vertical architectural features such. as spires and domes, could reach up to
67 feet (flagpoles could reach to 85 feet, the height of the Grandstand main roof structure), but the Grandstand
building would remain the site's tallest and most dominant architectural element. (ld.)
The surface parking lot is not a contributing resource to the Santa Anita Park Historic District.
Nonetheless, the Project elements of the proposed commercial entertainment component proposed for the south
parking lot area comply with the applicable Secre!ary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation as described
below. (Id.)
With respect to Standard I, the proposed commercial entertainment project includes conversion of a
portion of the south parking lot to a new use both compatible with its original historic recreational use in support
of the horse racing facility, and one that helps to sustain the ongoing historic use. The proposed commercial
96
development creates a modern, pedestrian-oriented retail and entertainment complex that extends and
complements the historic use of the property and invigorates the property, drawing more people to visit, thus
helping to ensure continuation of its historic use by introducing new generations to the Racetrack facility. (ld.)
This proposed component does not remove or radically change any features of the setting which are
considered important in defining the historic character; no contributing resources of the Historic District will be
demolished or removed from this area. The commercial entertainment center would be located on the south
parking lot, an area that is most suited to hold new development because it currently contains no development,
which would therefore make the Project conform to Standard 2 and Standard 4 (The proposed open space linked
to the Paddock Area is sited at the north end of the south parking lot but is also physically related to the Paddock
Area's garden). Since there are no structures on the south parking lot, there is no impact to distinctive features,
finishes or construction techniques and no historic surfaces to preserve, clean, repair, or treat. As such, the
proposed Project would conform to Standard 5, Standard 6, and Standard 7. (Id)
The proposed commercial entertainment development should not create a false sense of historical
development or add conjectural features or architectural elements. The new structures will be differentiated from
those already existing on the site. These new elements will be designed in architectural styles that use
complementary contemporary and revival design influences. The buildings wi\1 contain retail and entertainment
uses that line a Main Street. The proposed buildings are lower in height and smaller in scale with articulated
storefront modules in contrast to the great massing and volume of the historic Grandstand and Clubhouse
structure. They do not mimic the facilities' historic designs and will not be mistaken as original elements of the
historic race track. Therefore, the proposed Project would conform to Standard 3 and Standard 9. (Id.)
The parking area has been historically used for supplemental development when it was built out during
World War II. The new construction on the south parking lot is additive and reversible like the construction that
was placed on the south parking lot during World War II. The concept ofreversibility is most generally applied to
individual building additions or interior modifications. New construction for the proposed development is meant
to be permanent, but could be removed if desired in the future, and would therefore comply with Standard 10.
(ld)
The most appropriate location for additional development (i.e., additional administrative offices, track
support services, modern stables, entertainment, and retail) is on the south surface parking lot. The iconic symbol
of Santa Anita Park is the view from the Grandstand of the track and infield framed by palm trees and mountains.
Thus, the infield and track system would not be appropriate for construction of additional structures, nor would
the stable area or Paddock Gardens. Thus, the surface parking lots, specifically the south parking lot is the most
appropriate location for additions to the facility. Anything constructed on the south parking lot could be removed
in the future if owners of the facility so chose. There are no contributing or non-contributing resources located on
the south parking lot, nor is it a contributing resource to the Historic District. (Id.)
The impact of the proposed development (on the south parking lot) to the Historic District would be less
than significant. However, to further reduce the less-than-significant impact, the new construction would be
designed to be compatible with, but distinctive-from, the Historic District, by implementing mitigation measure
MM 4.4-5. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-5 would ensure that construction and development of the
commercial entertainment zone is compatible with, yet distinctive from, the Santa Anita Park Historic District,
and would further reduce the less-than-significant impact of development on the south parking lot to the Historic
District. (Id.) (Final EIR AEA pp. 16-20, Final EIR pp. 4-26 - 4-37, MMRP p. 3-41)
The cumulative context for impacts relating to development in the proposed Commercial Entertainment
Zone, adjacent to a Historic District, is the City, which includes all cumulative growth within the City, as
represented by fuIl implementation of the General Plan. None of the elements that contribute to the Historic
District would be affected by development in the south parking lot. Related cumulative development in the City
would be adjacent to a Historic District could result in a significant cumulative impact. As the south parking lot is
97
the appropriate area for new development within the historic district, the proposed Project would not be
cumulatively considerable. Therefore, as the southern parking lot is the appropriate location for new development
within the Historic District, and the proposed Project is the only development proposed for the area; development
in the proposed Commercial Entertainment Zone would not cumulatively contribute to an adverse environmental
affect and the cumulative impact of such development would be considered less than significant. (Id.)
(b) Stables and Grooms' Quarters: In addition, realignment of the roadway access from Gate 8 (off of
Baldwin into the facility) and construction of a new water line would result in the demolition of four structures
(Stable 126, Stable 135, Building 64, and Building MA) in the stable area. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-80.) These
structures are outside of thc Historic District boundaries and, as such, are not contributing resources to the
District. In addition, they arc also not considered historic as individual structures. One of the stables (64) is of
board and batten construction, and this building has previously been truncated to accommodate the road
alignment. Building (64A) is a two-story rectangular stucco-clad, concrete block structure, and Stable 126 is a
one-story concrete block structure, both of which are located at the outer edge of the stables area and built after
the period of significance. Because Building 64 had already been compromised and, thus, lost architectural
integrity and because Building 64A and Stable 126 were constructed after the period of significance, and all are
outside of the boundaries of the Historic District, realignment of the access road off of Gate 8 will not have any
negative impact to the historic resources in the Stables Area. The "L" shaped stable structure (Stable 135) located
in the southwest corner of the stables area will be truncated to make way for water infrastructure improvements.
This structure was built after the period of significance and is also outside of the boundaries of the Historic
District. Demolition of these four structures would result in a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is
required. (ld.; See also Final EIR pp. 4-28 through 4-30 and 4-34)
(c) Proposed Water Feature: The proposed Main Street would terminate to the south into a crescent
shaped area of a 7.5-acre landscaped open space area with a 3.5-acre water feature located at the southern end of
the property, with some small commercial or restaurant structures arranged along the perimeter. This water
feature would be encircled by a pedestrian boardwalk and landscaped gardens. The addition of this water
feature/open space area is consistent with the facility's history of creating garden areas for patrons to relax and
experience other forms of entertainment. The construction and operation of the proposed water feature would not,
therefore, result in any adverse historic impact to the Santa Anita Park facility, and this impact would be
considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. (ld.)
(d) Surface Parking Lots: There is no inherent historical significance to the surface parking lots. Because
the land was once inexpensive and the construction of parking structures was beyond the budget of the original,
highly speculative project, surface parking was the practical solution. Surface parking areas would continue to be
located to the south, east, and west of the new development site. These surface parking areas would include
landscaping throughout the parking lot areas. The southernmost surface parking lot, an approximate 18.5-acre lot
(shown as Parking Area C in Figure 3-20 [Site Access and Racetrack ParkingD in the new Draft EIR, between
Huntington Drive and the ring road, will be improved with turf or a permeable surface such as turf block, and will
be used primarily for Racetrack parking on peak racing days. Because of its relatively limited use for parking, this
area will function most timcs as a green, open space buffer between the mixed-use project and residential
neighborhoods south of Huntington Drive. Because these areas would essentially remain in their existing form,
with minor landscaping improvements and the addition of the permeable surface, and would continue to provide a
spatial buffer from adjacent uses to the south, their development would not result in an adverse historic impact to
Santa Anita Park. This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
(Jd)
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would
implementation of the proposed Project result in the delisting or loss of eligibility of the Santa Anita Park Historic
District on the National Register or California Register? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87, 92, Impact 4.4-6)
98
Finding: The impact of the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact on the Santa Anita
Park Historic District listing or eligibility for listing on the National Register or California Register. To further
reduce the less-than-significant impact, the new construction would be designed to be compatible with, but
distinctive from, the Historic District, by implementing mitigation measure MM 4.4-6. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.4-
87-89,-92.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-6 (MMRP at pp. 3-39-41.)
Explanation:
DelistingfLoss of Eligibility: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the delisting or
loss of eligibility of the Santa Anita Park Historic District on the National Register or California Register. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.4-81-82.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Implementation of mitigation
measure MM 4.4-6 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
The original Draft EIR discussed the demolition of the Saddling Barn, demolition of the south ticket
gates, and insertion of the Simulcast Center into the Grandstand, while resulting in the loss of two contributing
buildings and some limited interior historic fabric, would not result in the delisting or loss of eligibility of the
Santa Anita Park Historic District on the National Register or California Register as further described below.
However, this potential issue is even more remote since the Saddling Barn, as opposed to being demolished, will
not be relocated to the original 1934 location (see discussion under Section II above).
The property consists of 53 contributing resources, of which 47 are buildings, two are sites, one a
structure, and the remaining three are objects. The 37 stable buildings within the Historic District will not be
impacted. The principal building, the massive Grandstand building and the Clubhouse, are not impacted. The
interior of the 1938 Grandstand segment, where the Simulcast Center would be developed, has a very low level of
architectural integrity and insertion of the Simulcast Center would not impact the integrity of this contributing
resource. One of the two contributing sites included in the Historic District, the Paddock Area, would undergo
some alterations, but the changes (addition of landscape, placement of Saddling Barn in 1934 location) would
maintain the historic character of the area. The east ticket gates and the Receiving Barn, both buildings in the
Paddock Area, will not be impacted. The second site, the Infield Area, and the two buildings in the area, the East
Tote Board and the West Tote Board, would not be impacted. The one structure in the District, the track system,
would not be impacted, nor would the Track House building in the Track Area or the Colorado (Ticket) Battery in
the North Parking Lot. Two of the objects in the Paddock Area, the Seabiscuit Statue and George Woolf Statue,
would not be impacted. The Kingsbury Fountain would not be impacted with the implementation of identified
mitigation. Further, mitigation measure MM 4.4-6 would be implemented to further reduce the less-than-
significant impacts to the Santa Anita Park Historic District. (Id.)
According to the Statement of Significance in the Registration Form, the significance of the Historic
District is based on its connections in the areas of Entertainment/Recreation in terms of horse racing; ethnic
heritage in terms of Japanese-American History; and politics/government, economic impact of racing in
California and Arcadia and World War II uses. All of these areas of significance would still be conveyed. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-6 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact
by ensuring that the existing conditions of all contributing features, as well as available architectural and
photographical record, are maintained for potential future use. Impacts related to the delisting or loss of eligibility
of the Santa Anita Park Historic District on the National Register or California Register would not occur and
would remain less than significant. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would implementation of
the proposed Project result in a substantial adverse change to the historic significance of the Kingsbury Fountain
or associated mature landscaping in the Paddock Gardens? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87, 92. Impact 4.4-7)
99
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.4-82-83.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-7(a), MM 4.4-7(b), MM 4.4-7(c) (MMRP at pp. 3-39-44.)
Explanation:
Kingsburv Fountain and Mature Landscaping in Paddock Gardens: Construction of the proposed Project
could result in a substantial adverse change to the historic significance of the Kingsbury Fountain or associated
mature landscaping in the Paddock Gardens. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However,
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-7(a) through MM 4.4-7(c) would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. (Jd. at p. 4.4-82-83)
The Kingsbury Fountain would be retained in its current location. However, relocation of the Saddling
Barn and construction of the Jockeys' Room immediately west of the Kingsbury Fountain could result in
potential, but unanticipated, damage to the fountain or its associated mature palm trees, which could be
significant. Further, relocation of the Saddling Barn could require that some mature trees (some of which are
original to the 1938 reconfiguration of the Paddock Gardens) are removed. However, mitigation measures 4.4-
7(a)-(c) shall be implemented to mitigate potential adverse impacts that could occur with construction activities
adjacent to the Kingsbury Fountain. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-7(a) would reduce the potential impact of the Project to
the Kingsbury Fountain and associated mature landscaping in the Paddock Gardens Area to a less-than-significant
level by ensuring that adequate buffers or other procedures are developed and implemented during construction
activities to protect the Kingsbury Fountain and the mature landscaping in the Paddock Gardens from damage.
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-7(b) would ensure that any healthy mature trees that would be
removed as a result of construction activities would be reused in the open space areas of the expanded Paddock
Gardens, and implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-7(c) would ensure that a Landscape Maintenance
Plan is developed and implemented in order to ensure the long-term survival of the Paddock Gardens' mature
landscaping. No further mitigation is required. (Id.)
The cumulative context for impacts to Kingsbury Fountain and its attendant trees as a result of
construction activities is the City which includes all cumulative growth within the City, as represented by full
implementation of the General Plan. (Jd. at p. 4.4-91.) Construction activities throughout the City could affect
historic or otherwise important structures or views, as well as landscaping and native vegetation. However, it is
anticipated that future development in the City that could result in potentially significant environmental impacts
will be subject to the requirements of CEQA and other applicable legal requirements, and that construction-related
impacts of cumulative development will be mitigated to the extent feasible through typical mitigation measures
and/or conditions of approval, such as the use of buffers or other measures or procedures that would protect
important structures and/or landscaping, relocating mature vegetation that would be otherwise removed, and/or
using construction monitors to ensure that all measures are properly implemented. With these standard measures,
cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Jd)
With respect to the Kingsbury Fountain, mitigation measures MM 4.4-7(a) through MM 4.4-7(c) require
the Developer to evaluate, develop, and supervise the construction of buffers and other measures or procedures
that will protect the Kingsbury Fountain and associated vegetation; that any healthy mature trees that would be
removed as a result of construction activities would be boxed and reused in other areas, and that a Landscape
Maintenance Plan be developed and implemented for the Paddock Gardens. All of these measures would ensure
that the proposed Project does not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts, and a
less-than-significant cumulative project-related impact would occur. (ld.)
Impact: Would the Project cause an individual or cumulative substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines? In specific, would implementation of
100
the proposed project result in a substantial adverse change to State Historical Landmark 934? (new Draft EIR at p.
4.4-87,92. Impact 4.4-8)
Finding: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to State
Historical Landmark 934 (Japanese American Assembly Center). This is considered a less-than-significant
impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4 8 would further reduce this less-than-significant impact.
(ld. at pp. 4.4-83-84.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-8 (MMRP at pp. 3-43.)
Explanation:
Japanese American Assemblv Center: Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in a
substantial adverse change to State Historical Landmark 934 (Japanese American Assembly Center). This is
considered a 1ess-than-significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-8 would further reduce
this less-than-significant impact. (ld. at pp. 4.4-83-84.)
The Japanese American Assembly Center at Santa Anita Park, which included portions of the proposed
commercial entertainment zone and stable area, as well as the Westfield Santa Anita site, previously was
designated as State Historical Landmark 934. With respect to the use of Santa Anita Park as an Assembly Center,
the Registration Form notes: "... what does remain still has very important associations with Santa Anita Park's
transformation into an Assembly Center; the Grandstands, the Stable buildings, the Saddling Barn and the Infield
are still strongly associated with its use as an internment site for Japanese Americans during World War 11, and
adequately convey the significance of this even!...." (ld.)
After the Japanese-Americans were moved into "internment camps/relocation centers," Santa Anita Park
was used for the remainder of the War as Camp Santa Anita, an Army training center that housed over 20,000
troops and, for a period in 1944, also housed prisoners of war. Camp Santa Anita was closed in June 1944, and the
temporary buildings were relocated or dismantled. Horse racing returned to Santa Anita in May 1945 (Section 8,
page 16). However, neither the presence of these temporary structures nor the continuance of the space is
necessary for maintenance of the landmark designation, as the designation commemorates the historic events that
occurred at the location. According to the Statement of Significance in the Registration Form, the significance of
the Historic District is based in part on its connections in the areas of ethnic heritage in terms of Japanese-
American History, and politics and govemment for its WWII uses. All of these areas of significance would still be
conveyed and interpreted absent the physical presence of the south ticket gates. Further, the impact of new
construction on the south parking lot and construction of the Simulcast Center would not have a significant impact
on the association with the Japanese-American Assembly Center. A less-than-significant impact would result. In
order to further reduce the less-than-significant impact, the Project will implement mitigation measure MM 4.4-8.
(ld.)
Although the proposed Project includes development on areas once occupied by the Assembly Center, the
development would not adversely affect the landmark designation, and a less-than-significant impact would
result. (ld.) Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-8 would further reduce the less-than-significant
impact by ensuring that cultural and historical significance of the Japanese American Assembly Center is
maintained through development of an art program or interpretive display that interprets the history of Japanese
Americans who passed through Santa Anita Park on their way to the internment camps. (ld.)
The cumulative context for impacts to State Historical Landmark 934 (the Japanese American Assembly
Center) is the Japanese American Assembly Center site, which included portions of the proposed commercial
entertainment zone and stable area, as well as the Westfield Santa Anita site. (ld. at pp. 4.4-91-92.) Expansion of
the Westfield Santa Anita mall would occur on areas that were once occupied by the Assembly Center; however,
development of the Westfield Santa Anita expansion and the proposed Project would not result an adverse affect
on the landmark designation and, therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Further, because
the proposed Project includes development of an art program or historic element that interprets the history of
101
Japanese Americans who passed through Santa Anita Park, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and
would be less than significant. (ld.)
D. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-24-28, 52-53, Impact 4.6-2)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (ld.; see also Final EIR AEA at pp. 22-23.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.6-2 (MMRP at pp. 3-49-50.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could expose construction workers or the public
to significant health and safety hazards through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-24.) This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However, compliance with the identified project requirements and implementation
of mitigation measure MM 4.6-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (ld.)
Potential hazards from routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials are addressed in Section
II above. Therefore, the following discussion focuses on risks to construction workers and the public from
exposure to accidental releases of hazardous materials contained in structures or soil, or groundwater
contamination, during construction or exposure of Specific Plan Area employees and visitors to hazardous
materials through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions during operation of the Project. (ld.)
As the area proposed for development of commercial/retail uses currently contains a paved surface
parking lot, and given that the Phase I ESA prepared for the Specific Plan Area did not identify any subsurface
conditions in the development area that posed a significant hazardous materials concern, the potential for
hazardous materials to be encountered is low. Similarly, the on-site areas that would be subject to infrastructure
improvements, such as utility relocation or construction and/or access improvements, also are developed and were
not identified in the Phase I ESA as posing a significant hazardous materials concern. Nonetheless, because the
Phase I ESA investigation did not include subsurface sampling or laboratory analysis, the disturbance of soils and
the demolition of existing structures could result in the exposure of construction workers or employees to health
or safety risks if contaminated structures and/or soils are encountered during construction or maintenance
activities. (ld.) Exposure to contaminated structures or soil could occur from any of the following:
. Possible asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paints associated with the existing on-site
structures, pipes, and/or debris
. Unknown contaminants that have not previously been identified
. Three abandoned septic tanks associated with use of the site as an Assembly Center during WWII,
located on the southern side of the Grandstand
. Exposure to hazardous materials during construction activities could occur through any of the
following:
. Direct dermal contact with hazardous materials
. Incidental ingestion of hazardous materials (usually due to improper hygiene, when workers fail to wash
their hands before eating, drinking, or smoking)
. Inhalation of airbome dust released from dried hazardous materials. (ld.)
As part of the construction activities for the proposed Project, the existing ticket gates located south of the
Paddock Gardens would be demolished. The proposed Simulcast Center would result in the removal of some
existing Grandstand seating and associated building material. Four structures would also be demolished to
accommodate the improvements to Gate 8, as well as a waterline at the intersection of Baldwin Avenue and Gate
8. Prior to 1978, lead compounds were commonly used in interior and exterior paints. As the existing ticket gates
102
and Grandstand have been in operation since before 1978, there is the potential that these structures may contain
lead-based paint, and, as such, may require special handling during demolition activities. (new Draft EIR at pp.
4.6-25-26.)
In addition, prior to the 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers, which were used to
provide strength and fire resistance to building materials. Because portions of structures that would be demolished
are over 60 years old, there is also the potential that these structures may contain asbestos as well as lead-based
paint. Activities associated with the Grandstand, ticket gates, and Saddling Barn may result in the release of
asbestos into the environment. Construction workers at the Specific Plan Area and nearby residents and workers
could potentially be exposed to airborne lead-based paint dust, asbestos fibers, and/or other contaminants. (Id.)
However, federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials
containing lead and asbestos are present. Adherence to existing regulations and compliance with PR 4.6B, which
would require appropriate testing and abatement actions for hazardous materials, would ensure that impacts are
less than significant. Project requirement PR 4.6 is required to be implemented. (Jd.; see also discussion above on
relocation of the Saddling Barn). With incorporation of this project requirement, the risks to construction workers,
employees, and visitors of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level, as all hazardous
materials identified during construction would be handled and disposed of according to local, state, and federal
regulations. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: During construction activities, demolition of the Saddling Barn could result in the
release of asbestos or lead-based paint, which were common building components/materials used prior to 1980.
While the majority of the Saddling Barn would no longer be demolished (with the exception of the Jockeys
Room, the entry bay, and the south ticket gates), it is possible that these materials could still be released into the
environment, although to a much lesser extent. Any materials found during demolition of the Jockeys Room, the
entry bay, and the south ticket gates would be disposed according to current safety regulations. PR 4.6B requires
that a qualified professional survey the Saddling Barn (and other components of the project) for asbestos, lead-
based paint, and other hazardous materials and prepare an abatement report to ensure that any potential health
risks to construction workers and the public are minimized. No new significant environmental impacts or
substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with the potential release of asbestos or lead-based
paint compared to those discussed in the new Draft EIR would result from the proposed Project including the
AEA Modifications. Impacts would be less under the AEA Modifications than under the project conditions
analyzed in the new Draft EIR (Final EIR AEA at pp. 22-23.)
Unidentified Soil or Groundwater Contamination: There is the possibility for previously unidentified soil
and/or groundwater contamination to be encountered during grading, excavation, and/or ground disturbance
associated with the proposed Project. Such contamination may have resulted from past activities within the
Specific Plan Area. Historically, local shallow aquifer groundwater contamination may have occurred because of
leaking underground storage tanks near the maintenance facility. The LACDPW issued a site investigation
requirement. Soil adjacent to the tank pit was excavated and disposed of on September 25, 1987. (new Draft EIR
at p. 4.6-26-28.) In 1989, a Phase II Site Assessment was performed to evaluate conditions associated with two
leaking gasoline underground storage tanks (LUSTs), also at the maintenance facility. (Final EIR, Corrections and
Additions, at p. 2-44.) Soil contamination was limited to the vicinity of two wells in a zone estimated to be less
than three feet in thickness immediately above the groundwater table and approximately 10 feet below ground
surface, located south of the Raymond Fault. (Id.)The lateral extent was estimated to be limited to the area near
the two wells based on infornmtion collected from the boring samples, the depth to groundwater, and the very low
concentrations of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) in groundwater. The highest benzene
concentration was 1,000 mglL, dropping to 0.180 mglL at the nearby downgradient well, indicating that the
benzene did not travel far in the groundwater. (Id.) In 1995, a no further action letter was obtained from the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works (HLACDPW") documenting the completion of a site investigation
and remedial action for three underground storage tanks that had taken place from 1986-88. (Id.)
103
In 1996, an investigation of soil and groundwater during excavation for sewer lines indicated soil
contamination by petroleum hydrocarbons, which pose no known human health risk; however, groundwater levels
of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and BTEX were below detection limits.
In 2005, two additional underground storage tanks were excavated and disposed. The associated soil
sampling and analysis measured no detectable total petroleum hydrocarbons, such as diesel fuel or BTEX, in any
of the samples immediately below the tanks and further down gradient. These underground storage tanks were
officially closed by the LACDPW on February 8, 2005. There are no currently listed open leaking underground
storage tank (LUST) or spills, leaks, investigation, and cleanup (SLIe) cases for the SAP site and no water wells
are located nearby. (Id.)
If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during grading or excavation, the removal
activities required could pose health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, materials-handling
personnel, resident horses, and the public, to hazardous materials or vapors. Such contamination could cause
various short-term or long-tetm adverse health effects in persons or horses exposed to the hazardous substances. If
exposed to hazardous substances, this would result in a potentially significant hazard to the public. (Id.)
In order to address the potential for encountering unidentified contamination, mitigation measure
MM 4.6-2 shall be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. In addition, compliance with
PR 4.6B would ensure that impacts associated with the demolition of structures potentially containing hazardous
materials within the Specific Plan Area would be less than significant. Implementation of mitigation measure
MM 4.6-2 would reduce the potentially significant effects associated with the exposure of construction workers or
the public to contaminated soil or groundwater during construction activities level by providing supplemental
procedures for the protection of construction workers and the public, and remediation of contaminated soils in the
event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications to the proposed Project would not alter the likelihood for
discovering unanticipated soil or groundwater contamination during construction activities, since there are no
known underground storage tanks or other sources of contaminants listed in Government Code Section 65962.5
within thc development areas. Further, mitigation measure MM 4.6-2 identifies the process that would be
undertaken in the event that unanticipated hazardous materials are found in the soil or groundwater. No new
significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with the
potential discovery of unanticipated soil or groundwater contamination would result from the Project's inclusion
of the AEA Modifications. Impacts would be the same as the under the project conditions analyzed in the new
Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p. 22.)
Operational Impacts: Exposure of Specific Plan Area visitors and employees to hazardous materials
could occur by improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes during operation of the
proposed Project, particularly by untrained personnel, environmentally unsound disposal methods, or fire,
explosion, or other emergencies, all of which could result in adverse health effects. The types and amounts of
hazardous materials would vary according to the nature of the activity. In some cases, it is the type of hazardous
material that is potentially hazardous; in others, it is the amount of hazardous material that could present a hazard.
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-28.)
The proposed Project would be anticipated to use routine chemicals, such as cleansers, bleaches, and
detergents, and landscape maintenance chemicals, such as herbicides and pesticides. Potentially, propane could be
used for heating. The Glendale Fire Department and Burbank Fire Department Hazardous Material Response
Teams, in conjunction with the Arcadia Fire Department and Los Angeles County Health Hazardous Materials
Division (upon special request for the purpose of additional expertise), respond to hazardous materials incidents
within the City according to an Automatic Aid Agreement. Major hazardous materials accidents associated with
retail-commercial uses, including restaurants, theaters, and stores, are extremely infrequent, and additional
emergency response capabilities are not anticipated to be necessary to respond to the potential incremental
increase in the number of incidents that could result from operation of the proposed Project. No hazardous
materials beyond routine cleaning chemicals would be utilized in the operation of the new Grandstand area or
104
near the horse stables. Impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials during operation of the proposed Project would be less than significant. (ld.)
AEA Modifications: Given the overall decrease in square footage associated with the cinema/theater
building and the retail building, it is likely that the use of hazardous materials would be less than described in the
new Draft EIR. Also, the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations
would ensure that risks resulting from the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials
or hazardous wastes associated with construction or operation of the proposed project would be avoided or
reduced, and adherence to PR 4.6A would further ensure compliance with existing safety standards related to the
use and storage of hazardous materials. No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the routine transportation, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials
or hazardous wastes and/or the accidental release of hazardous materials would result from implementation of the
AEA Modifications, compared to project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be less than
under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p. 23.)
Therefore, compliance. with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements pertaining to proper
handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials set forth in project requirement PR 4.6A would ensure
that impacts related to accidental upset of hazardous materials during operation would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level. No mitigation is required. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts: Related development in the City and surrounding area could subject construction
workers to health or safety risks through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers
potentially affected would vary from project to project. For example, if demolition of existing buildings is
required, short-term increases in hazardous materials generation, due to the presence of lead-based paints and
asbestos-containing materials in existing facilities. could occur. However, projects would be required to comply
with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All demolition activities that would involve asbestos or lead-
based paint would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403 and OSHA regulations. Adherence to applicable regulations
and guidelines pertaining to abatement of, and protection from, exposure to pesticides, asbestos, lead, and other
hazardous materials would ensure that cumulative impacts from construction activities would be less than
significant. Because the proposed Project would also be required to comply with applicable statutes and
regulations, which would ensure that the Project would not result in significant public hazards as a result of the
accidental release of hazardous materials, the Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and
the cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-52-53.)
It is also possible that a number of the related projects and other future development in the City could
expose residents and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater. It is anticipated that future
development projects would adhere to the applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations that govern
underground storage tanks and pesticide use, as well as requirements applicable to disposal and cleanup of
contaminants. As a result, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Although there is no known soil or
groundwater contamination on the Project Site, in the unlikely event that soil or groundwater contamination is
discovered, the Developer would continue to adhere to applicable regulations. Additionally, site-specific
investigations would be conducted at locations where contaminated soils or groundwater could occur to minimize
the exposure of workers to hazardous substances. As a result, the proposed Project's contribution to cumulative
impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater would not be cumulatively considerable
and would be considered a less-than-significant impact. (ld.)
In addition to cumulative construction impacts, cumulative development could potentially involve the
operation of future uses that could release hazardous materials into the environment. However, similar to potential
construction impacts, the storage and use of hazardous materials is strictly regulated by existing statutes. For
example, CBC requirements prescribe safe storage accommodations. In addition, hazardous materials use
regulations include requirements for employees to wear appropriate protective equipment, and safety equipment is
routinely available in all areas where hazardous materials are used. It is anticipated that future development
projects would adhere to the applicable federal, state, and local requirements that regulate the release of hazardous
105
materials into the environment resulting from operational activities. It should also be noted that any impacts
would be localized. As a result, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, because the
proposed Project would also be required to comply with applicable statutes and regulations, which would ensure
that the Project would not result in significant public hazards as a result of the accidental release of hazardous
materials, the Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact of the
Project would be less than significant. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or result in the handling of acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-29,
Impact 4.6-4)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-39; Final EIR AEA at p. 23.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.6-2, MM 4.6-4, MM 4.13-3(a). (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-33, 48, 4.13-88.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could result in the handling of acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-
38.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with the identified project
requirements and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2 and MM 4.6-4, as well as MM 4. 13-3(a),
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (ld.)
Construction of the proposed Project could result in exposure of construction workers and the public to
hazardous materials including asbestos, lead-based paint, and/or contaminated soil or groundwater. Various state
and federal regulations and guidelines associated with demolition activities would be followed during
construction activities within the Project Site. Compliance with PR 4.6B, which would require appropriate testing
and abatement actions for hazardous materials, which would prevent the potential release of lead-based paint dust
and/or asbestos fibers during the demolition of potentially contaminated structures within the Specific Plan Area.
In addition, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.6-2, which provides supplemental procedures for the
remediation of contaminated soils or groundwater in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants,
would prevent the potential exposure of construction workers and the surrounding public to unidentified soil or
groundwater contamination during construction activities. Compliance with applicable regulations and policies
would also minimize any potential risk associated with the increased use of hazardous materials during the
construction of the proposed Project. (ld.)
Transportation of potentially hazardous materials for use during the construction phase of the proposed
Project could occur along Huntington Drive, in the vicinity of Holy Angels School (at the corner of Huntington
Drive and Holly Avenue). The City has pre-approved construction routes, which include, but are not limited to,
Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive to and from 1-210. MM 4.13-3(a) would require that heavily loaded trucks
traverse along pre-approved routes only, which would reduce the risk from upset of hazardous materials. In
addition, MM 4.6-4 shall be implemented to require that any transportation of potentially hazardous materials
during the construction phase of the proposed Project shall occur only along Baldwin A venue, and would not
occur along Huntington Drive. Thus, hazardous materials would not be transported adjacent to Holy Angels
School. Implementation of this project requirement and mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level. (ld.)
During operation of the proposed Project, the retail-commercial uses and adaptive reuse of the
Grandstand would not entail the use of acutely hazardous materials, defined by the National Institutes of Health as
wastes that can be fatal to humans even in low doses. (!d. at pp. 4.6-33-34.) Only general maintenance and
household-type products are anticipated to be used, such as paints, solvents, cleaning products, pesticides, and
herbicides. Although the proposed Project would introduce new development within the Project Site, it would not
introduce new categories of hazardous materials, as these materials are also commonly (and currently) used at the
Racetrack and in the surrounding area. Adherence to PR 4.6A would be required by the proposed Project to
106
reduce any potential consequences of a hazardous materials operational accident at the Project Site. Compliance
with PR 4.6A would require compliance with applicable laws and regulations that would reduce the risk of
accidental upset or release of hazardous materials during use, transportation, and handling through the
implementation of established safety practices, procedures, and reporting requirements. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: While the Project Site is located within ';' mile of an existing school, none of the
AEA Modifications are within Y. mile of an existing school. Also, with respect to vehicular service or emergency
access, none of the AEA Modifications with respect to the southward movement of West Parking Garage, the
cinema/theater building, or retail building would substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and
presented in Figure 3-21 of the new Draft EIR. No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more
severe environmental impacts associated with the handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing school would result from implementation of the AEA Modifications,
compared to project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be the same as under the project
conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p. 23.)
As such, impacts related to handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste would be
reduced to a less-than-significant level through identified project requirements and mitigation measures, and this
impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project create a significant health risk to the public, resident horses, or the environment
through provision of aquatic habitat suitable for disease vectors and resulting risk of infection, human discomfort,
or injury? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-36, 55, Impact 4.6-6)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.6-6(a), MM 4.6-6(b) (MMRP at pp. 3-57-59; new Draft EIR at 4.6.34.)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project could create a significant health risk to the public, resident
horses, or the environment through provision of aquatic habitat suitable for vector production and risk of
infection, human discomfort, or injury. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-36-37.) This is considered a potentially
significant impact. However, compliance with the identified project requirements and implementation of
mitigation measures MM 4.6-6(a) and MM 4.6-6(b) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.)
The proposed Project includes a 3.5-acre water feature that would be accented by small-scale restaurants
and cafes, and commercial uses along its perimeter. The introduction of this water feature could result in
conditions suitable for mosquito production and the resultant risk of infection in humans and horses on site.
Although not all species of mosquitoes in the San Gabriel Valley are capable of transmitting disease to humans or
horses, several species of concern (Culex spp.) reproduce well in man-made structures (e.g., vaults, sumps, pools,
and fountains) if water is not properly treated and is allowed to stand for more than 72 hours. These species are
excellent vectors of the most common encephalitis-causing viruses, such as SLE and WNV, and pose a risk to
public health. (Id.)
Measures recommended by the Vector Control District are included in the design of the water feature
design to minimize conditions that would facilitate mosquito production. According to the Vector Control
District, a concrete-lined lake will pose limited risks if the lake is adequately maintained, and water circulation,
filtration, and chemical treatment are maintained to swimming pool standards. (Final ElR, Corrections and
Additions, 2-45.) While the water feature is too large for chlorination, highly refined filtration (and constant
circulation) would be utilized to accomplish appropriate vector control. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-37.) The water
feature would include a solid bottom with constant filtration, a low-height waterfall, and a central fountain that
107
would prevent still or near-still water. The sides of the water feature would be steep or vertical to aid in the
removal of potential breeding habitat. Optimum water depths and water feature bottom slopes would be provided
to meet the requirements of water quality, construction, maintenance, and water safety. The solid bottom would
retard the rooting of aquatic weeds, deter proliferation of nuisance insects, including mosquitoes, and facilitate
maintenance operations. Recirculation pumps, aeration, biofiltration (within the water feature), and water
exchange would be components used to ensure proper water feature maintenance and water quality. In addition,
fish species would be introduced for control of aquatic insects and algae. Because of the size of the water feature,
the use of chlorine, ozone, or other chemicals for maintenance of water quality would not be feasible. At least one
employee would be dedicated to full-time maintenance of the water feature. PR 4.6C requires that the water
feature be designed and maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the San Gabriel Valley Vector &
Mosquito Control District, and would ensure that the health risk to humans and horses from mosquito- or other
vector-bome illness would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-37-38, MMRP at
pp.3-53-56.)
Mosquito production may occur that could encourage proliferation of amphibians or bird species that eat
mosquitoes; however, increased amphibious populations would not be considered significant and would not
present a health risk to humans or animals on the Project Site. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-38.) Frogs and other
amphibians do not carry diseases that are transmitted to humans. Therefore, increased mosquito production would
not result in a significant impact on the environment itself other than as identified in the following discussions of
risks to humans and horses. It should also be noted that West Nile virus has had a marked impact on wild bird
populations across the United States, most notably corvids (crows and their relatives), raptors (birds of prey),
various song birds, and some rare and endangered species (e.g., sage grouse). (Final EIR, Corrections and
Additions, at p. 2-45.) With inclusion of Project Requirement PR 4.6C, regular maintenance activities would
diminish the likelihood of mosquito generation. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-38; MMRP at pp. 3-53-56.) In addition,
standing water in underground utility vaults or valve boxes could encourage mosquito production. Incorporation
of PR 4.6D will reduce the significance of this impact by ensuring that underground vaults and boxes are
constructed to be insect-proof. (ld.; MMRP at pp. 3-53-57.)
No horse at the track has contracted WNV or any other rnosquito-borne disease in the history of the track
despite its proximity to the natural, unfiltered pools at the L.A. County Arboretum. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-46.)
With implementation of mitigation, the risk to the racehorses at the track from WNV or other mosquito-borne
illness would continue to be less than significant, even with construction of the proposed water feature. Mitigation
measure MM 4.6-6(a) requires that the Developer provide notification on a regular basis or through a permanent
posted sign of the existence of the Project's water feature, the risks from WNV, and suggested vaccination
regimens to all horse owners and boarders on the property. (ld.)
With respect to black flies, the fountains and waterfalls would be subject to periodic twenty-four-hour
shutoff recommended by the San Gabriel Valley Vector & Mosquito Control District during any periods of
infestation to kill the majority of black fly larvae that may exist within the water feature. This would be sufficient
to control the black fly population and prevent potential nuisance/annoyance issues. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-39-
40.) As noted, black flies and midges do not transmit disease to animals or humans. (Id.)
Mitigation measure MM 4.6-6(b) requires that the Developer prepare a maintenance plan for the water
feature that would be approved by the City, in consultation with the Vector Control District Mitigation measure
MM 4.6-6(b) shall be implemented to include recommendations by the Vector Control District (see new Draft
EIR at App. F2) to ensure proper maintenance of the water feature, including maintenance of filtration, aeration,
and circulation systems and other design features, such that the health risk from potential exposure to vector-
bome illness would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-39-40.)
Permanent or structural best management practices (BMPs) such as vaults, sumps, and the like may hold
water longer than 72 hours, allowing for the reproduction of mosquitoes, black flies, and midges and increasing
the risk to public health from mosquito and other vectors. "Vault type" stormwater capture devices often breed
mosquitoes nearly year-round. In addition, the underground space provides safe harborage for adult resting and
108
over-wintering mosquitoes. The proposed Project includes permanent and/or structural BMPs for water quality
treatment purposes, PR 4.6D requires underground vault design to prohibit entrance of insects, and PR 4.6E
requires that the Developer submit a plan for managing mosquitoes in these stormwater treatme,nt devices. With
implementation of BMPs and project requirements, the potential increased risk of mosquito production would be
minimal. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.6-39-40; MMRP at pp. 3-56-58.) Therefore, with implementation of design
features as noted above, mitigation measures, project requirements, and BMPs for stormwater runoff and control,
this impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts: Future development in the City may also involve water features such as ponds or
fountains that could present an increased health risk for vector-borne illness such as West Nile virus or the avian
flu. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.6-55.) In addition, the proposed Project's water feature, combined with other existing
water features within the City, such as the Arcadia Wash, the Los Angeles County Arboretum, and the Arcadia
County Park and Santa Anita Golf Course to the east of the Project Site, could increase the potential health risk
from disease-carrying insects and birds. It is anticipated that all future development would implement BMPs with
regard to vector control, and local jurisdictions would be responsible for ensuring that appropriate mitigation,
including recirculation, aeration, and filtration systems, is implemented for all future projects, and that mitigation
is implemented to discourage use of the water feature by waterfowl or migratory birds. Cumulative projects
outside the City limits are not within the City's control; however, these projects are also subject to local, state, and
federal laws, which would limit associated cumulative health risks. Thus, cumulative impacts would not be
significant. Mitigation measures and project requirements are included in the proposed Project that would reduce
project specific impacts on vector control to a less-than-significant level and ensure that the proposed Project's
contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Consequently, the proposed Project's
cumulative impact associated with increased health risk from disease-carrying insects and birds would be less
than significant. (Id.)
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade water quality? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-46, Impact 4.7-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id. at pp. 4.7-46-48, 51-54; see also Final EIR AEA at pp. 23-24.) Compliance with the identified
project requirements and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7 I(a) and MM 4.7 I (b) would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level and ensure that the proposed Project would not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.7-I(a), MM 4.7-I(b) (MMRP at pp. 3-71-72.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project could increase stormwater pollutant loads or
concentrations, which could result in a violation of water quality standards or a substantial degradation of water
quality. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-46.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, compliance
with the identified project requirements and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7-I(a) and
MM 4.7-1(b) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.; Final EIR pp. 4-53 - 4-58, 4-61 - 4-64,
4-403 - 4-405, and 4-603 - 4-604; Final EIR AEA p. 24; MMRP at p. 3-64.)
While the proposed Project would not result in any point-source discharge subject to an individual permit
(WDRs), it would be subject to the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction
Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ), and/or the Small LUP General Permit, NPDES General
Permit CAS000005 for construction-related 'activities (Order 2003-0007-DWQ) for any related work that would
be conducted on- or off- site pertaining to realignment, grading, construction, or development of small
underground utilities associated with the proposed Project (e.g., relocation of power lines, storm drains, sewer
lines, and others). (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-46-47; refer to new Draft EIR at Section 4.7.2, Regulatory
109
Framework, of the new Draft EIR for a discussion of the Construction General Permit and the Small LUP General
Permit.)
Historical depth to groundwater is approximately 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) north of the
Raymond fault, and approximately 100 feet bgs south of the fault (See Appendix E of the new Draft EIR).
Therefore, groundwater is not expected to be reached during construction activities. However, while the historic
depth to groundwater is approximately 100 bgs south of the Raymond Fault, and the four soil borings did not
encounter groundwater at depths of up to 50 feet, there has been no comprehensive testing of the Project Site and,
therefore, there could be a slight potential for perched water tables or locally high groundwater to be encountered
during construction activities, south of the Raymond Fault. If groundwater dewatering is required, the Developer
must obtain coverage under the Construction Dewatering General Permit (Order R4-2003-0 111 [General NPDES
Permit CAG994004]). (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.7-46-47.)
Construction Phase: The proposed Project would include both on-site and off-site construction activities,
such as excavation and trenching for foundations and utilities, soil compaction and moving, cut and fill activities,
and grading, all of which would temporarily disturb soils. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion
from wind and rain, resulting in sediment transport from the site. Erosion and sedimentation affects water quality
through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, growth, and reproduction of
aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, could attach to
sediment and be transported downstream, which could contribute to degradation of water quality. (Id. at pp. 46-
48.)
The delivery, handling, and storage of construction materials and wastes, as well as the use of
construction equipment, could also introduce a risk for stormwater contamination that could impact water quality.
Spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery can result in oil and grease contamination, and some
hydrocarbon compound pollution associated with oil and grease can be toxic to aquatic organisms at low
concentrations. Demolition of buildings and the removal of waste material during construction could also result in
tracking of dust and debris and release of contaminants in existing structures. Staging areas or building sites can
also be the source of pollution due to the use of paints, solvents, cleaning agents, and metals during construction.
Impacts associated with metals in stormwater include toxicity to aquatic organisms, such as bioaccumulation, and
the potential contamination of drinking supplies. Pesticide use (including herbicides, fungicides) associated with
site preparation work (as opposed to pesticide use for landscaping) is another potential source of stormwater
contamination. Pesticide impacts to water quality include toxicity to aquatic species and bioaccumulation in larger
species. Larger pollutants, such as trash, debris, and organic matter, are additional pollutants that could be
associated with construction activities. Impacts include health hazards and aquatic ecosystem damage associated
with bacteria, viruses, and vectors. Construction impacts on water quality are potentially significant and could
lead to exceedance of standards or criteria. (Id.)
All on-site and off-site construction activities, including road improvements and realignments, installation
and realignment of utilities, demolition of existing structures for new development or replacement, new
development (including all development within the CE zone and construction of the Simulcast Center), and
replacement of facilities (including resurfacing existing parking lots, gate improvements, and others) would all be
subject to PR 4.7 A and PR 4. 7B, which require that the Developer file a NOI to comply with the NPDES General
Construction Permit and/or Small LUP General Permit, and that a SUSMP is prepared, all of which would ensure
that less-than-significant construction impacts on water quality occur. (Id.; MMRP at pp. 3-63-70.)
Operation: During the operational phase of the proposed Project, the major source of pollution in
stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other impervious surfaces, such
as parking lots and pedestrian walkways, prior to connecting to the storm drain system. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-
51-54.) No significant change in pollutant amount or type is anticipated. The existing north area parking lot would
remain a parking lot and potential effects on water quality would be unchanged. Infrastructure improvements
(e.g., modifications to roadways and approaches), replacement of existing structures, and development of the
Simulcast Center in the Racetrack Grandstand would not significantly alter either the amount of impervious cover
110
IL.
or the surface land use pollutant type and quantity characteristics. These would remain essentially the same. In
summary, runoff properties for most of the Specific Plan Area, including the Santa Anita Park Racetrack, stables,
north parking lot, and other Racetrack facilities, would not be significantly altered compared to existing
conditions, and, where altered, runoff volumes would be decreased slightly. With respect to runoff volumes, the
proposed Project would reduce runoff in the CE zone from an entire 50-year storm event (i.e., total storm
volume/amount) from about 156 acre-feet to 146 acre-feet and from about 137 acre-feet to 129 acre-feet from the
entire 25-year storm event. (ld.)
Operation of the Santa Anita Park Racetrack area is subject to permitting and regulation under the
existing NPDES (and Large CAFO designation) Permit and would remain unchanged; consequently, potential
pollutant loads and concentrations in stormwater would remain the same. The stable areas would still be regulated
under the Racetrack permit and would not change regarding potential runoff amount, pollutant loads, or
concentrations of pollutants in stormwater. Covering additional portions of the West Branch Arcadia Wash would
not impede Santa Anita Park Racetrack operations or compliance with its NPDES discharge permit; access to the
channel would be provided every 500 feet within the covered area and the portion from south of the round barn to
the stable areas would remain open for maintenance. (Jd.; Final EIR pp. 4-61 - 4-64.)
Because land use and operations within these areas would remain essentially unchanged, there would be
no impact associated with project operations for these areas. Consequently, the analysis of post-construction
potential water quality impacts is limited to the CE zone. (ld.)
Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-3 of the new Draft EIR indicate: (I) whether the anticipated changes would be
considered significant, (2) whether BMPs would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts; and
(3) what the overall level of significance would be with the incorporation of project requirements (BMPs). A large
amount of pollution may be tolerable to the aquatic environment if it does not persist; whereas, lower amounts
may affect the environment to a greater extent if they are allowed to continue day to day. As indicated in
Table 4.7-2 of the new Draft EIR, the calculated proposed Project pollutant load is lower than existing conditions
for all constituents except for nitrogen. Total nitrogen annual load would be expected to be about 35 percent
higher than the existing load. Consequently, the proposed Project could contribute to degraded water quality in
terms of nitrogen loading. Overall, as listed in Table 4.7-3 of the new Draft EIR, the proposed Project predicted
pollutant concentrations in the CE zone are expected to be lower than, or the same as, predicted existing
concentrations for all pollutants listed, except for total nitrogen and phosphorous. For listed conventional
pollutants, no numerical standard or criterion is available. For nitrogen, the TMDL requires that for all minor
sources (which includes the City stormwater), the maximum concentration of nitrate and nitrite in the discharge
water is no more than 8.0 mglL. Furthermore, the Basin Plan standard/criteria for fecal coliforms is a geometric
mean average of at least five values in one month, taken during the recreational season. The listed runoff
concentrations, as measured by Los Angeles County, are for storm season runoff, not the dry-weather recreation
season conditions. Therefore, the listed criteria are not applicable to the measured stormwater runoff
concentrations, while they are applicable to the receiving waterbody. (Jd. at pp. 4.7-55-56.)
The Phase I General Municipal Permit (NPDES Permit CS00400 1 and Order 01-182), which covers the
County and the incorporated cities therein (except the City of Long Beach), does not include numeric limits for
stormwater discharges. Instead, the objective of this permit is to protect the beneficial uses of receiving waters in
Los Angeles County through the specifications of BMPs (source control and structural and treatment control), as
well as pollution prevention through education and public outreach. The NPDES program also requires
compliance with the SUSMP and preparation of SWPPPs. The terms of the SUSMP are implemented by the
preparation of a site-specific Concept Drainage Plan and a Stormwater Management Plan. These Plans also
address and implement the Countywide Stormwater Management Plan and Watershed Management Area Plans,
where applicable. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.7-56-57.) While there are no numeric standards associated with this
permit, all of the permittees, which includes the City, must neither cause nor contribute to the exceedance of water
quality standards and objectives, waste discharge requirements, or create conditions of nuisance in the receiving
waters. In order to receive building and construction permits, the proposed Project would be required to comply
III
with the NPDES requirements, which, de facto, prohibit the violation of water quality standards and objectives
and waste discharge requirements. (Jd.)
With respect to the standards and/or criteria for assessing stormwater impacts, given that numeric limits
are not identified in the County's NPDES permit, Table 4.7-3 of the new Draft EIR, presents acute receiving
water criteria that are based on either the Basin Plan, California Toxics Rule, or Draft TMDLs. These criteria can
be used as a conservative (stringent) objective for stormwater. Acute receiving water criteria are used because
stormwater events are short-term, but may result in the highest concentrations of pollutants, such as that found in
the 'first flush' (about first 0.5 inch) of runoff. Chronic criteria are long-term average concentrations of exposure
that are appropriate for assessing potential water quality impacts between storm events as a result of a particular
operational activity that results in on-going exposure, such as dry-weather wastewater discharges to the receiving
waters and/or other permitted point-source dischargers. The proposed Project would not cause or contribute to any
operational activities that would create an on-going discharge of runoff or wastewater to the receiving waters.
Because the proposed Project would not result in continuous discharges, only surface runoff during storm events,
there would be no chronic exposure of the Arcadia Wash to heavy metals in runoff from the proposed Project site.
The only potential impacts would be the acute (or short term) impacts from stormwater runoff. Therefore, only
acute potential impacts (as represented by a potential exceedance of acute standards/criteria) are reflected in
Table 4.7-3 of the new Draft EIR. (Jd)
Because pollutant concentrations in stormwater runoff are anticipated to exceed acute receiving water
criteria for copper and zinc, which could contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards and overall water
quality degradation as a result of the proposed Project, this would be a potentially significant impact. However,
PR 4.7B and PR 4.7D, which are required as part of the NPDES permit process, include preparation of a site-
specific SUSMP and the use of structural BMPs that meet numeric filtration standards (which are not currently
employed at the Project Site) to ensure that less-than-significant operational impacts to water quality occur. (ld;
MMRP at pp. 3-70-71.)
Implementation of PR 4.7 A, PR 4. 7B and PR 4.7D would help reduce pollutant loads (total amount of
pollutants from a given area in a year) and pollutant concentrations (amount of pollutant per unit volume of runoff
water) total copper and total zinc by providing construction and operational BMPs. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-57.)
However, implementation of these PRs would not necessarily ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less-
than-significant level since PR 4.7A is for construction, PR 4.7B does not include targeted reductions, and
PR 4.7D addresses size criteria for filtration devices. As such, MMs 4.7-I(a) and -I(b) shall be implemented to
reduce potential total nitrogen load, total copper concentration, and total zinc concentration to less-than-
significant levels. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.7-I(a) and MM 4.7-I(b), along with PR 4.7A
through PR 4.7D, would reduce potential project impacts to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-
58; Final EIR pp. 4-53 - 4-58,4-403 - 4-405.)
The proposed Project also includes realignment of the 57-inch storm drain that conveys stormwater from
the adjacent Westfield Santa Anita eastward to the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash; however, the proposed
Project would not contribute to this storm drain, and, therefore, no water quality impacts would occur to this
facility as part of the proposed Project. The 57-inch drain solely conveys stormwater from Westfield Santa Anita
to the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash and even after realignment it would continue to solely convey storm
water from Westfield Santa Anita. (ld.) Construction-related impacts as a result of realignment of the 57-inch
drain have also been addressed in Section 4.2 (Air Quality), Section 4.9 (Noise), and Section 4.13
(Transportation/Traffic) of the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
Development of the Simulcast Center would not result in changes in pollutant loads or concentrations.
Essentially, a covered structure containing the Grandstand would be replaced by a covered structure containing
new commercial uses. (ld.)
AEA Modifications: As discussed above in Section 1l.G of these Findings, runoff rates and volumes
(and any associated possibility for increased erosion or flooding, either on or off site, or groundwater recharge
opportunities) would not vary between the project evaluated in the new Draft EIR and the proposed Project with
112
the AEA Modifications because a similar amount of pervious and impervious surfaces would be provided. A
similar volume, flow, and constituents of stormwater runoff would enter the Wash at the southern end of the
project site, near where the Arcadia Wash would become open, compared to project conditions analyzed in the
new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p. 24.)
Cumulative Impacts. As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-62, 67, Impact 4.7-5)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.7-62-67; Final AEA at p. 24.) Compliance with the identified project
requirement and implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7 5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level and ensure that the proposed Project would not result in the construction of new stormwater
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.7-5 (MMRP at p. 3-75.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would require or result in the construction of new or
expanded stormwater drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with the identified project requirement
and implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.7-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-62.)
A 57-inch storm drain crosses the Specific Plan Area in a northeasterly direction and connects to the West
Branch of the Arcadia Wash just south of the Paddock Gardens. This facility conveys off-site stormwater runoff
from Westfield Santa Anita. Other smaller storm drains and catch basins are located throughout the Project Site,
some of which would be relocated and others replaced or expanded as a result of the proposed Project. As part of
construction of the proposed Project, several of the existing storm drain facilities crossing the site would be
relocated. For example, the 57-inch line would be routed around the proposed ring road. In addition, various on-
site drainage facilities (e.g., storm drains, catch basins) would be relocated to allow for the proposed development
and new drainage and treatment facilities would be constructed. Because there would be no increase in
stormwater flows, the off-site infrastructure would not be affected by the proposed Project and would not require
new or expanded facilities. While significant unavoidable air quality and noise impacts would occur as a result of
construction under the proposed Project, these impacts would be mitigated to the extent feasible by the Project
requirements and mitigation measures detailed in those sections. However, to minimize the potential disruption to
storm drain service, which could occur as a result of construction activities, mitigation measure MM 4.7-5
requires that new or temporary storm drains are constructed prior to the abandonment of existing utility lines or
that sufficient retention is included during construction activities to prevent flooding, erosion, or water quality
impacts. (Jd. at pp. 4.7-62-63.)
As required by law, all utility connections would be constructed in accordance with all applicable
Uniform Building Codes, City Ordinances, and Public Works standards to ensure an adequately sized and
properly constructed system. Further, implementation and extension of storm drain infrastructure would be fully
funded and constructed by the Developer in a manner that would minimize the potential for utility disruption.
Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result. (ld.)
The primary drainage facility within the Specific Plan Area is the West Branch of the Arcadia Wash,
which flows onto and through the middle of project site in a southeasterly direction and joins the East Branch of
the Arcadia Wash offsite,just south of West Huntington Drive. The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash is a 20- to
113
30-foot wide concrete drainage channel that is partially covered as it crosses the Project Site. The section of the
West Branch that passes by the stable area is completely covered and other portions of the Wash are also covered
to provide access to the south parking lot area. The West Branch of the Arcadia Wash would be covered in its
remaining open portions. None of these proposed improvements to the storm drain infrastructure would require
substantial demolition--{)nly removal of existing surface coverings, which would already be done as part of the
overall construction activities. The channel will function as it does today, collecting runoff from paved parking
areas. As required by PR 4.7A, typical BMPs could include silt fencing and temporary bermslbarriers to prevent
silt runoff, storm drain inlet protection, and additional fencing to prevent human access and trash from depositing
into the channel. (!d.)
The cover would be constructed by drilling and forming piles alongside the channel walls at the proper
spacing, connecting the piles with pre-cast grade-beam segments running parallel to the sidewalls, and lifting and
placing precast cover sections over the channel by crane. Backfill and grading up to and over the cover would
occur last. No heavy equipment would be placed in the channel during construction, and the flow of water in the
channel would not be interrupted. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: The lack of new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the AEA Modifications is discussed in the preceding impact explanation in
Section 1ll.G of these Findings.
Cumulative Impacts: Cumulative growth in the City could result in the need for additional storm drain
conveyance infrastructure, which could result in significant cumulative impacts depending upon the nature and
extent of the proposed improvements. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.7-67.) However, any future projects (for regional
facilities) that are located within the City would be the responsibility of the County of Los Angeles Department of
Public Works, while local stormwater management facilities, such as storm drains within local roadways, would
be the responsibility of the City. In either case, appropriate CEQA review would be completed to identify any
potential construction-related impacts and to develop feasible mitigation measures that would reduce impacts, if
available. Typically, construction-related effects of storm drain infrastructure would be short-term and temporary
and would largely result from construction-related air quality emissions, increased noise levels, and/or the re-
routing of traffic to accommodate construction activities. In addition, while future development may require some
localized modifications and/or additions to the existing stormwater drainage system, it is expected that these
modifications would not be extensive given the already developed nature of the area. Therefore, on a cumulative
basis, the construction of new storm drain facilities, or the expansion of such facilities, would be considered less
than significant. Further, the proposed Project's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively
considerable because the improvements would be relatively minor, would include implementation of MM 4.7-5,
and would occur entirely in conjunction with the short-term grading and construction activities that would already
occur to implement the proposed Project. Therefore, the cumulative project-related impact would be less than
significant. (Id.)
F. Land Use and Planning
Impact: Would the proposed Project either individually or cumulatively conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to, the
general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-11, 129, Impact 4.8-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; see also Final EIR AEA at pp. 24-25.) Compliance with the identified project requirements and
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Sections 4.1 through 4.14 of the Final EIR would reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level ensuring that the proposed Project would not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not
limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
114
Mitigation Measures: No specific mitigation measures are set forth in the Land Use and Planning section
(Chapter 4.8) of the new Draft ElR, however, implementation of the project requirements and the following
related mitigation measures would ensure that any impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level:
MM 4.4-2(a)--(t); MM 4.4-3(a)--(d); MM 4.4-5; MM 4.4-6; MM 4.4-7(a)--(c); MM 4.4-8; MM 4.7-1 (a)--(b);
MM 4.9-1 (a)--(c); MM 4.11-1; MM 4.11-2; MM 4.13-1(a)-(t); MM 4. I 3-4(a); MM 4.13-4(b); and MM 4.13-10.
(MMRP, at pp. 3-75-77.)
Explanation: As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the new Draft EIR discusses any
conflicts between the proposed Project and applicable regional and local plans. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-11.) The
regional plans relevant to the proposed Project, and for which an analysis of potential conflicts is provided,
include the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (SCAG 1995), the Regional Transportation Plan (SCAG
2001), the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the Los Angeles Region (California Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region 1995), and the Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMD
[SCAQMD] 2003). The local plans relevant to the proposed Project, and for which an analysis of potential
conflicts is also provided, include the City General Plan and the Arcadia Municipal Code (Arcadia 2003 and as
revised 2006). The analysis of potential conflicts for the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan is provided in
Section 4.2 (Air Quality) of the new Draft EIR. (ld.) A discussion of the proposed Project's potential conflicts
with these other regional and local plans is provided in the new Draft EIR (See pp. 4.8-11-123 of the new Draft
EIR).
Proposed General Plan Amendments: Because adoption of the General Plan Amendments would ensure
that the proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, there would be no issues of consistency that need to
be addressed. However, potential adverse environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the
General Plan Amendments are addressed below. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-109.)
Purooses of General Plan Amendments: The purposes of the General Plan amendments are as follows:
. To amend the land use designation and land use map in the General Plan for the entire race track property
from "Horse Racing" and Commercial" to "Specific Plan" so that the specific development standards and
design guidelines will guide development
. To amend the General Plan language to reflect the nature of development anticipated in the Specific Plan
and to reflect and further the implementation of the 1996 General Plan update
. To amend language regarding view protection to ensure that development anticipated in the Specific Plan
and encouraged by other language in the General Plan can be located where envisioned
. To identify a Commercial Entertainment land use category. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-109.)
Permitted Uses: The Horse Racing and commercial General Plan designations would be changed to
Specific Plan-Santa Anita (SP-SA) to allow the more detailed provisions of the Santa Anita Park Specific Plan to
regulate the use and development of the Specific Plan Area and permit a commercial development in the southern
parking lot. The General Plan designated 0.30 FAR for the commercial development would be established and
would include a range of common and specialty retail and personal service as well as entertainment uses, as well
as allow for activities to remain in accordance with the provisions of the S-I zoning designation. The Specific
Plan would also allow existing Racetrack uses in the R-I zone to be continued, and to allow roadways and surface
parking. The uses proposed would not introduce incompatible uses that would conflict with surrounding land
uses. (Jd.)
General Plan Aooroaches and Strater!ies: Maintain the visibility of the Grandstand from locations along
Huntington Drive (Huntington Drive/Colorado Place and Huntington Drive/Centennial Way) and providing new
and pedestrian -scaled views of the existing Racetrack Grandstandfrom within the new development. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.8-110-111.) The above proposed changes stress the importance of providing opportunities for views of
the historic Racetrack Grandstands to visitors to the property in a pedestrian-oriented environment. While the
proposed Project would paltially limit views of the historic Grandstands from certain vantage points on
Huntington Drive, it would preserve views from numerous other vantage points and, with the commercial
115
component, provide increased opportunities for views of the Grandstand in a pedestrian environment. This has
been identified as an adversc environmental impact in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR. However,
the General Plan has identified the southerly parking lot as a site for future development of urban intensity and
has set forth goals and objectives for achieving this vision. There is no feasible way to implement the objectives
of the General Plan for the subject property without resulting in some view blockage of the Racetrack from the
south. The proposed Project actually opens up Racetrack views to visitors to the development. (ld.)
Foster the sllccessful continued operation of the Santa Anita Racetrack by attracting new visitors to the
property. (ld.) The proposed Project would introduce new commercial and track-related uses, and create visual,
pedestrian and automobile linkages among Westfield Santa Anita, the proposed Project, and the Racetrack. This
would increase the number of patrons and improve the economic strength of the Racetrack. The proposed Project
presents a unique opportunity to implement a balanced plan that includes retail, office, and entertainment uses.
This combination of uses would function to increase patronage and maintain the economic viability of the
Racetrack. In addition, the proposed Project would provide new views of the historic Racetrack Grandstand from
within the new development to both visitors and residents. All environmental impacts resulting from the proposed
permitted uses have been analyzed in the technical sections of the new Draft EIR, Sections 4.1 through 4.14. (ld.)
Providing sufficient on-site security so as to minimize impacts to the services of the Arcadia Police
Department. (Id.) Arcadia Police Department personnel were consulted as part of the development of the EIR and
were involved in the development review process for the proposed Project. The proposed Project would include
the preparation of a Security Plan, which would include both surveillance measures and security personnel in
order to discourage and prevent crime and minimize impacts on law enforcement services. In addition, the Project
would include safety and crime mitigation measures as identified by the Arcadia Police Department. Any impact
to police services has been analyzed in Section 4.11 (Public Services) of the new Draft EIR, and Mitigation
measures MM 4.11-2 and MM 4.13-12 will ensure that the impact to police services is less than significant. (Id.)
CD-16b Promote the continued economic viability of the Santa Anita Park race track by providing
opportunities for compatible commercial uses which can serve to increase patronage through the adoption of the
Santa Anita Park Specific Plan for such developmelll. (ld.) The proposed Project is anticipated to provide retail
opportunities to a defined trade area, including the City, which would result in a net sales tax gain to the City of
approximately $2.21 million in 2009 and $2.40 million in 2011. According to the retail market analysis performed
by Speer Consulting, the addition of new retail into an area can result in an enhancement of its regional draw,
often increasing local sales outside the new development due to a recapture of expenditures previously leaking
from the community. Historical examples, such as the Westfield Santa Anita's Nordstrom wing expansion in 1994
and the opening of the Grove at Farmers Market in 2002, provide evidence that local retailers may not feel a
negative sales impact as a result of the opening of the proposed Project, and the surrounding area, in fact, could
experience an increase in overall sales levels. In the area surrounding the Grove, for instance, sales tax receipts
increased 66 percent in the year following the new center's opening. The proposed Project presents a unique
opportunity to implement a balanced plan that includes commercial/retail, office, and entertainment uses. It is
anticipated that some visitors to the proposed Project would also patronize the Racetrack, and the combination of
uses could, therefore, function to increase patronage and help maintain the economic viability of the Racetrack.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a significant impact. (Id.)
Preservation of Grandstand Views and ProDosed Commercial Uses: While the proposed Project would
partially limit views of the historic Grandstand from certain vantage points on Huntington Drive, it would
preserve views frorn numerous other vantage points and provide increased opportunities for views of the
Grandstand in a pedestrian environment. This has been identified as an adverse environmental impact in
Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR. It is important to continued viability of the Racetrack that
increased pedestrian views of the Grandstand be provided through attraction of new visitors and residents to the
area. While any development on the south parking area would at least partially block views of the Grandstand
from Huntington Drive, the development of the south parking lot would provide new, close-up views to residents
and visitors to the development who currently do not view the Grandstand. The General Plan has identified the
southerly parking lot as a site for future development of urban intensity and has set forth goals and objectives for
116
achieving this vision. There is no feasible way to implement the objectives of the General Plan for the subject
property without resulting ill some view blockage of the Racetrack from the south. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-
111.)
ProieCI Desill1l: Development within the CE zone follows architectural planning and massing principles
that would respect and reinforce the Racetrack Grandstand's present role as the dominant architectural feature on
the site. New buildings would be placed a distance away from the Grandstand to allow expansive views of its
overall length. By design, the development would orient its major visual and circulation elements toward the
Grandstand, so that visitors to the development would always have the Grandstand in view as they move north
and south along Main Street. The Grandstand structure would anchor the northern end of the development with
restaurant and other entertainment uses overlooking the paddock garden, thereby creating a sense of place
between the Grandstand the proposed Project as integrated elements. (Id. at pp. 4.8-112.)
Buildings shall employ a palette of details drawn from a mix of architectural styles compatible with the
existing Grandstand, which would remain the site's dominant architectural feature. Building treatments and
details shall be selected for their adaptability to the current use, and to evoke the commercial architecture of small
town American Main Streets that have developed incrementally, and over the approximate historic time period
that the track and Grandstand evolved. The Grandstand would be visible as visitors move north along Main Street.
Building fa9ades would be individualized to reflect a variety of architectural styles. (Id)
The project includes a Sign Program to provide design standards that ensure consistent quality, scale,
variety, illumination, and placement for tenant and project identification, directional, and promotional signage
within the CE zone, as well as at other project sign locations within the Specific Plan Area. All new signs in the
Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code. The placement and size of the
signs would be generally consistent with the placement at major project entrances, size, and center identification
of the existing major signs for Santa Anita Park. All exterior building signs would be subject to review and
approval by the City's Development Services Department for consistency with the Sign Program and the City's
Municipal Code. Adverse environmental impacts have been identified with regard to views in Section 4.1
(Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
Analysis of Consistencv of the Proposed General Plan Amendments with the Remainder of the General
Plan: A General Plan is a planning tool that serves as a framework within which the City can make land use
decisions. It embodies public policy relative to the future land use, both public and private, and expresses
community development goals. As stated on page 1-7 of the City General Plan, "The General Plan thus serves as
a comprehensive management plan for the future, enabling land use and policy determinations to be made within
a framework that incorporates all public health and safety and 'quality of life' considerations in a manner that
reflects community values." (Jd. at pp. 113-114.)
Page 1.17 of the Arcadia General Plan states that, as conditions change in the future, it may be necessary
to amend the General Plan from time to time. Courts give great deference to a local governmental agency's
determination of consistency with its own general plan, recognizing that "the body which adopted the general plan
policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its
adjudicatory capacity. Because policies in a general plan reflect a range of competing interests, the governmental
agency must be allowed to weigh and balance the plan's policies when applying them, and it has broad discretion
to construe its policies in light of the plan's purposes. Indeed, the Arcadia General Plan specifically states, on
page 1-19: "It is the intent of the Arcadia General Plan to present the necessary information to make consistent
and informed future land use and policy decisions. Despite the requirements of State law requiring internal
consistency of the General Plan, the inclusion of goals, approach, and strategies that are based 011 competing
issues is inevitable.." Where such competition between issues results in seemingly inconsistent strategies, City
decision makers would be required to consider the relative priority of such strategies at the time decisions are
being made." (/d.)
Allowing commercial dev.elopment on the Racetrack's southem parking lot would not frustrate the
General Plan's goals and policies. Indeed, as mentioned on pages 2-14 through 2-18 of the City's General Plan,
117
the southern parking lot of the Racetrack presents an opportunity to "create a development of urban intensity in
the Racetrack's southerly parking lot which recognizes the unique attributes of the Racetrack to the north and the
Santa Anita Fashion Park mall to the west, and to cultivate this unique combination of regional attractions into a
cohesive center." (ld.) Further, "[t]he purpose of designating the area south of the Racetrack Grandstands as
Commercial is to assist in facilitating free market forces to introduce new, compatible uses with complementary
market segments to the existing mall, downtown area, and other commercial areas within the City. Overall, the
Commercial designation of the southerly Racetrack parking lot is intended to assist in achieving the City's
Mission and the related economic development and public infrastructure goals that are included in the Mission
statement." Designation of the southern parking lot to Specific Plan would not conflict with these goals, and in
fact, directly furthers them by providing exactly the type of commercial center envisioned in the General Plan. If
development of commercial on this site conflicts with any other policies of the General Plan, these conflicts pre-
exist the proposed Project, which would not present any new conflicts. (Id.)
Amending the language in the General Plan regarding preservation of views of the Grandstands from
Huntington Drive would not frustrate the General Plan's goals and policies. Development has been envisioned for
the southern parking lot, and any development has the potential to obstruct views of the historic Grandstands. It is
certainly not the intention of the General Plan policies with regard to preservation of these views that they be
absolutely preserved as they exist today, which approach would conflict with the goals of the General Plan for
development in this area. Indeed, views of the Grandstand were modified when the new elevator towers were
constructed under the same General Plan. The General Plan does not act to bar changes to the views of the
Grandstand. The intent of view policies and goals is to preserve views of important architectural features such as
the Grandstands, but it is not expressly stated in any General Plan policy that intact views be maintained of the
Grandstands in perpetuity from all vantage points. The amended language simply seeks to clarify the intent of the
City to allow development on the southern parking lot in keeping with its vision while at the same time preserving
views of the Grandstands to the maximum extent feasible, in essence, balancing competing interests and goals as
noted on page 1-19 of the General Plan. (Id.)
Similarly, including new language that projects shall provide sufficient on-site security to minimize
impacts to Arcadia Police Department simply clarifies the reality that outside factors contribute to the adequacy of
a municipality's police force, including funding, staffing availability, crime rate, etc. This amended language
would not conflict with any other policy or goal of the General Plan, which nowhere else requires that there be no
impact to the police department from development projects. (Id.)
Simply adding the language to strategy CD-16b of Chapter 2.0 "through the adoption of the Santa Anita
Park Specific Plan for such development" would not conflict with any goals or policies of the General Plan.
Consistency of the Specific Plan with the General Plan has been analyzed earlier in this section. (Id.)
Therefore, the proposed Project's General Plan Amendments would be consistent with other General Plan
goals and policies as noted, and would not frustrate the City's ability to implement all General Plan's goals and
policies. (Id.)
118
City Municipal Code: Implementation of the proposed Project would amend the General Plan Land Use
Chapter designation for the entire 304-acre Specific Plan Area from "Horse Racing and Commercial
Development" to "Specific Plan-Santa Anita" and would further provide a zone change per Municipal Code
Section 9296.4.2 to allow thc SP-CE, SP-R-I, and SP-S-l to serve as the zoning for the site. The new Draft EIR
contains tables that illustrate the typical and proposed development regulations for the zone areas. Proposed
changes in development regulations could result in significant or potentially significant impacts, as discussed
below. While no C-I or C-2 zoning will be amended by the proposed Project, the C-I/C-2 zoning is representative
for comparison purposes of the typical commercial uses of the type proposed by the Project that are currently in
the Municipal Code. (Id.)
Analvsis of Impacts of Changes in Development Regulations:
Comparison of S-l Zone Regulations (See Table 4.8-1 of the new Draft EIR) (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-
115.)
Permitted Uses. The proposed Project's permitted uses (see Specific Plan in Appendix LI for a complete
list) would be governed by Section 9252.1 (R-I Area) of the Arcadia Municipal Code, as modified by the Specific
Plan. Existing Racetrack uses would remain and surface parking and roadways would be allowed in the S-I and
commercial zones under Section 9273.1 of the Municipal Code. Compatibility with adjacent uses, both
commercial and residential, has been analyzed in the new Draft EIR. The uses would be compatible with adjacent
uses and would not allow conflicting or incompatible uses on the Project Site. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact from the new uses permitted on the site. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-115-116.)
Height. The proposed zoning change would limit development in the Specific Plan CE zone area to 55
feet or 2 stories, whichever is less (some architectural features could reach heights of 67 feet, with flagpoles up to
85 feet). Compared to the current no height limit for the S-I zone, the proposed Project would result in a less
significant impact on environmental resources that could be affected by structure height, such as viewshed
obstruction. There would be no significant impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-136.)
Parking. No minimum requirements are established for parking in the S-I zone. The establishment of
parking standards for commcrcial use in the CE zone would be 4.75 spaces per 1,000 gross leasable sf. All
impacts of parking for the proposed development have been analyzed in Section 4.13 (TransportationfTraffic) of
the new Draft EIR, and were determined to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure
MM 4.13-10. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with current requirements to provide bicycle parking at 4
stalls per first 50,000 gsf, I stall per additional 50,000 gsf of commercial building area, rounded up, and 4 stalls
per 1,000 sf of office use. There would be no significant impact. (Id.)
Signs. There are currently no restrictions on signs in the S-I zone. However, all new signs in the Specific
Plan Area would comply with the City's Municipal Code. The placement and size of the signs would be generally
consistent with the placement at major project entrances, size, and center identification of the existing major signs
for Santa Anita Park. All exterior building signs would be subject to review and approval by the City's
Development Services Department for consistency with the Sign Program and the City's Municipal Code.
Therefore, it is anticipated that any impact from the Sign Program relative to changes in zoning will be less than
significant, and these impacts have been analyzed in Section 4. I (Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
Landscaping. There are no landscaping or open space requirements in the S- I zone; however, any
development proposals would be subject to architectural design review. The Specific Plan would require that a
minimum of 10 percent of the overall site be landscaped, which would conform to the Municipal Code
requirements for the CE zone and could represent an overall benefit compared to current zoning requirements.
There would be no adverse impact. (Id.)
Huntington Drive Setback. The current ISO-foot setback requirement would remain under the Specific
Plan at a minimum 150 feet. Therefore, there would be no impact. (Id.)
119
Parking Fees and Use of Parking. The continued use of the north parking lot for Racetrack-related parking
would not represent a change from current conditions and would, therefore, not be a significant impact. (Jd.)
Comparison ofC-l and C-2 Zone Regulations (See Table 4.8-2 and 4.8-3, new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-117-
119.)
Permitted Uses. See discussion above for the S-I zone. There would be no impact from the proposed
changes in the CE zone. (new Draft EIR at p. 119.)
Height. The current height restriction for the C-I and C-2 zones is 2 stories, or 40 feet. The proposed zone
change would allow a height of 55 feet or 2 stories (85 feet maximum for architectural features such as flagpoles;
67 feet for domes and spires), whichever is less. This could result in potentially significant impacts on viewsheds
or visual character of the Project Site. Impacts on viewsheds and visual character have been fully discussed in
Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR, and all significant impacts have been disclosed. (ld.)
Parking. The impacts of development parking have been fully analyzed in Section 4.13
(Transportation/Traffic) of the new Draft EIR. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with current requirements
to provide bicycle parking at 4 stalls per first 50,000 gsf, and I stall per additional 50,000 gsf of commercial
building area, rounded up. Parking for the office uses would be provided at 4 spaces per 1,000 gsf, or 100 spaces.
There would be no significant impact. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-119-120.)
Signs. Under the C-I and C-2 regulations, all proposals for erection or construction of signs must go
through the City's architectural design review process. The project includes a Sign Program to provide design
standards that ensure consistent quality, scale, variety, illumination, and placement for tenant and project
identification, directional, and promotional signage within the CE zone, as well as at other project sign locations
within the Specific Plan Area. All new signs in the Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the
City's Municipal Code. The placement and size of the signs would be generally consistent with the placement at
major project entrances, size, and center identification of the existing major signs for Santa Anita Park. All
exterior building signs would be subject to review and approval by the City's Development Services Department
for consistency with the Sign Program and the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, it is anticipated that any impact
from the Sign Program relative to changes in zoning will be less than significant, and these impacts have been
analyzed in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
Landscaping. The current ordinance requires 5 percent of parking areas and 5 percent of the overall site to
be landscaped. The Specific Plan requires 10 percent coverage, and the change also allows areas currently
exempted areas to contribute to the 10 percent overall landscaping requirement and includes the greenspace areas
along Huntington Drive to count towards the total. The top level of the parking structures would not contain
landscaping in containers; however, because of the substantial amount of landscaping being provided throughout
the site, and given that the Project is providing twice the mandated site coverage for landscaping, there would be
no significant impact. In fact, the impact would be beneficial, as more of the site would be landscaped than under
the C-l or C-2 zones. (Id.)
Comparison of R-I and CE Zone Regulations (See Table 4.8-4, new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-121.)
Permitted Uses. Thc R-l zone permits single-family dwellings and certain accessory structures such as
sheds or guest houses depending on lot size. The development under the proposed Project would be commercial
and would permit uses not currently allowed on the site. As long as the Racetrack is in operation, the City has not
envisioned and does not now envision any residential uses in the Specific Plan Area, and did not consider the
inclusion of any residential units on this property in preparing housing or population growth forecasts in the
General Plan. The Specific Plan Area has been specifically designated in the General Plan for as a transitioning
area for commercial use. Further, the Specific Plan would restrict uses allowed in the R-I zone on the northern
parking lot to parking and infrastructure uses and would prohibit new residential uses. The change in permitted
uses would have no direct significant impact. However, it could have significant adverse impacts in various
resource areas, such as air quality, aesthetics, land use, noise, and others. All adverse impacts from development
120
of the proposed Project and allowance of the specified uses have been analyzed and identified in the technical
sections of the new Draft EIR. (ld. at pp. 4.8-121-122.)
Height. Maximum building height in the R-I zone is 30 feet. The proposed Project would allow buildings
up to 55 feet, which would create a greater visual impact than allowing single-family residential in the zone.
However, single-family residential on the Project Site, regardless of current zoning that would allow it, would not
be consistent with the General Plan's vision for development on the southerly parking lot. Therefore, while the
greater heights allowed under the Specific Plan in the R-l zone would result in a greater visual impact, the
commercial development would be consistent with the General Plan, while residential development would not.
(ld)
Parking. Commercial parking would be provided as per the Municipal Code. There would be no impact
with respect to parking. (ld.)
Signs. No signs are allowed in the R-I zone except for address signs. The signs allowed under the
Specific Plan would be varied and of larger dimensions than what would be allowed in the R-I zone, which would
represent a potentially significant impact. The objective of the Sign Program is to provide design standards that
ensure consistent quality, scale, variety, illumination, and placement for tenant and project identification,
directional and promotional signage within the CE zone, as well as at other project sign locations within the
Specific Plan Area. Sign3ge is an integral part of the Project's image and appeal, so signs must be carefully
designed, placed, and proportioned with respect to the setting and context in which they occur. Signs should be
visible and legible, without becoming the dominant element. The Sign Program has been evaluated in Section 4.1
(Aesthetics) of the new Draft EIR, and signs would be generally consistent with the surrounding suburban
commercial development, and would not represent an adverse effect on the visual character of the Project Site or
its surroundings. The change in visual character from what would be allowed under the R-I zoning and what is
proposed would be a significant change, but would not be considered adverse. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-122.)
Landscaping Under the R-I zone, yards and setback areas must be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs, or
other plant materials, and permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Pedestrian walkways, and
vehicular accessways cannot occupy more than 40 percent of the required front yard. With respect to overall site
coverage, the Specific Plan requires a minimum of 10 percent of the proposed CE zone to be landscaped, which is
a minimum of 8.5 acres. This landscaping would include planters, planting beds, and trees within pedestrian
plazas, surface parking areas, and open space areas, as well as a 1.4-acre landscaped open space area connecting
the Paddock Gardens with the proposed Main Street, and approximately 4 acres of landscaped open space
surrounding the proposed 3.5-acre water feature. Trees would be a minimum 36-inch box in size. The 1.4-acre
open area south of the Paddock Gardens would provide a landscaped, park-like setting with lawn areas, formal
planting beds, and hardscape. (ld.)
With respect to surface parking areas within the proposed CE zone, a minimum of 10 percent of the
interior of the public surface parking areas would be landscaped. Planting areas between the parking areas and
adjacent public streets would also be considered part of the 10 percent interior landscaping requirement. Planting
beds would be distributed throughout the surface parking areas as evenly as possible. All planting areas or islands
would be surrounded by a 6-inch-high, continuous, raised concrete curb. (Id.)
In addition, Parking Area C, which encompasses approximately 18.5 acres located between Huntington
Drive and the ring road, would be improved with turf or a permeable surface such as turf block, and would be
used primarily for Racetrack parking on peak racing days. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-144-145.) Because of its
relatively limited use for parking, this area would function most times as a green, open space buffer between the
commercial entertainment project and existing uses south of Huntington Drive. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-123.)
Along Huntington Drive, from Centennial Way to the bridge entrance at Westfield Santa Anita, the
existing, ivy-covered chain-link fence would be replaced by a 10-foot-wide landscaped buffer that would begin at
the property line and extend into the CE zone. In addition, a new S-foot sidewalk would be provided within the
public right-of-way. The landscaped buffer and sidewalk would meander to avoid existing, mature trees along
121
Huntington Drive, and new landscaping would be low in scale to preserve unobstructed views of the proposed
development. Currently, the property line occurs approximately 10 feet from the roadway curb, which would
result in a total of approximately 20 feet of landscaping and sidewalk areas. (Id.)
Because the proposed Project provides significant landscaped areas, the change that would result from
allowing a commercial development on site instead of the single-family dwellings under current zoning would not
result in a significant adverse impact. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: Moving the cinema/theater building, retail building, and West Parking Garage from
the location proposed in the new Draft EIR to a location immediately south and the increase in height of the
parking structure would not impact land use compatibility or consistency. The same uses are proposed in each of
these structures, and in a substantially similar location, which would ensure the same land use consistency with
General Plan goals, policies, and strategies as provided under the proposed project evaluated in the new Draft
EIR. The design of the buildings would also be the same, although reduced in size for the cinema/theater and
retail buildings, which would ensure architectural compatibility and consistency with the Grandstand and the
remainder of the Project in the same manner as provided under the proposed project evaluated in the new Draft
EIR (and as required by PR4.IB). No conflicts with any of the policies, strategies, and standards in the General
Plan would result from the Project's inclusion of the AEA Modifications. (Final E1R AEA at pp. 24-25.)
The relocated Saddling Barn would be placed on the same site as originally proposed and would provide
the same function; therefore, there would be no change with respect to the land use consistency analysis. With
respect to architectural compatibility, the relocated Saddling Barn would retain most aspects of the original design
of the 1938 Saddling Barn. The plan of the Barn would be adapted to the site (the wings angled), but the form,
spaces, structure, and style of the Saddling Barn and its Viewing Terrace would remain. While the central entry
bay would be rebuilt to conform to and connect the reconfigured wings, the original front fa,ade of this bay
would be used in the rebuilt central entry bay. Therefore, because the existing Saddling Barn would be relocated,
it would be entirely compatible with the existing architecture of the Grandstand and other surrounding structures
and uses. (Id.)
No new or different General Plan Amendments would be required, nor would any proposed General Plan
Amendment no longer be needed. None of the AEA Modifications would result in a new significant
environmental impact or a substantial increase, compared project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, in
the severity of an environmental impact with respect to land use consistency or architectural compatibility, the
latter of which is an important focus of the City's General Plan. Impacts would be the same as under the project
conditions evaluated in the new Draft E1R. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts: It is anticipated that future development within the San Gabriel Valley subregion
would result in changes to thc existing land use environment through the conversion of vacant land to developed
uses, or through conversions of existing land uses (e.g., from residential to commercial). (Id. at p. 4.8-129.) It is
anticipated that development of the identified related projects and regional growth in general would result in
changes to the existing land use environment in the geographic area through the conversion of vacant land and
low-density uses to higher density uses, or through conversions of existing land use (e.g., from residential to
commercial). However, it is assumed that this future development would be consistent with SCAG planning
policies and other policies applicable to the individual projects. Development of the identified related projects and
regional growth in the subregion would be reviewed for consistency with adopted land use plans and policies by
SCAG and the individual cities, in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the state Zoning and Planning
Law, and the Subdivision Map Act, which require findings of plan and policy consistency prior to approval of
entitlements for development. For this reason, cumulative impacts associated with inconsistency of future
development with adopted plans and policies would be less than significant. (Id.)
Development under the proposed Project would not conflict with the designated land uses in the General
Plan and Municipal Code, and the proposed Project would also be compatible with the land uses that surround the
Specific Plan Area, as demonstrated in analyses in the new Draft EIR. The proposed Project would not make a
122
cumulatively considerable contribution to this cumulative impact. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the
proposed Project with respect to land use plan conflicts would be less than significant. (Id.)
In summary, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed Project that was adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. A less-than-significant impact would result. (Id.)
G. Noise
Impact: Would the Project cither individually or cumulatively result in the exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other jurisdictions adjacent to the City of Arcadia? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-31, Impacts 4.9-1,4.9-2,
4.9-3,4.9-4 and 4.9-6)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (ld.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-28.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-1(a), MM 4.9-1(b), MM 4.13-3(a). (MMRP at pp. 3-78-79.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate noise levels that exceed
the noise standards established by the City in the Noise Element of the General Plan. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-
31-33.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the identified project requirement
and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b), as well as mitigation MM 4.13-3(a),
would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the Project's construction noise
impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the
exemption for construction noise that exists in Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, this
impact would be considered less than significant. (ld.) Construction activities associated with the proposed
Project could expose grooms residing on site in temporary living quarters associated with Santa Anita Park to
noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City in the Noise Element of the General Plan. This
is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9 I(a) and MM 4.9
I(b) would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the Project's construction
noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with
the exemption for construction noise that exists in Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, this
impact would be considered less than significant. Operation of the proposed Project would not expose noise-
sensitive land uses on site to noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City. Compliance with the
identified project requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant. Operation of the
proposed Project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses off site to noise levels that exceed the standards
established by the City. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (ld. at p. 4.9-45.) Operation of the
proposed Project would increase traffic levels, but would not contribute to the exposure of persons off site to
noise levels in excess of established standards of the cities and jurisdictions outside of the City. (ld. at pp. 4.9-53-
54.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact.
All construction activity estimates were based on the June 2006, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Park
Construction Equipment and Personnel Estimate spreadsheet. Estimates for noise levels generated by construction
equipment is based upon available data presented by the EPA and the FTA's Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Final Report, of May 2006. (ld.)
Construction activities would involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other equipment that
generate noise. Haul trucks using the local roadways would generate noise as they move along the road. Each
stage of construction would involve a different mix of operating equipment, and noise levels would vary based on
the amount and types of equipment in operation and the location of the activity. Various sensitive uses that could
be affected (depending on the distance from the Project Site) by the construction noise occurring as a result of the
proposed Project are shown in Figure 4.9-2 (Off-Site Sensitive Uses) of the new Draft EIR. Based on the
information presented in Table 4.9-9 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels) of the new Draft EIR and the
123
diminishment of noise levels at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the approximate noise levels
experienced by these surrounding sensitive uses due to construction activities occurring at the Specific Plan Area
have been estimated and are shown in Table 4.9-10 of the new Draft EIR. The sensitive uses that could be
affected have a maximum exterior noise limit of 65 dBA CNEL; therefore, any construction activity that would
lead to an increase above the 65 dBA CNEL limit would be considered to exceed the threshold. Because the
difference between interior and exterior noise levels is presumed to range between 20 and 30 dBA, interior noise
levels were not calculated. (Id.)
In addition to construction activities occurring within the Specific Plan Area, implementation of the
proposed Project would require the reconfiguration of several site access points and several roadway intersections
outside of the Project Site, in accordance with the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.13 of the new Draft
EIR. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-39.) These improvements would include widening, re-striping, and/or
reconfiguration of roadway segments and intersections, as shown in Table 4.9-11 of the new Draft EIR. Based on
the information presented in Table 4.9-9 of the new Draft EIR and the attenuation of noise levels at a rate of
6 dBA per doubling of distance, the approximate noise levels experienced by nearby sensitive uses due to
construction activities associated with trallic improvement measures have been estimated and are shown in
Table 4.9-11 of the new Draft EIR. As these traffic improvement measures would be performed on existing
roadways, and would not involve construction of foundations or structures, the Leq assumptions are based upon
the noise levels established for excavation and grading activities as shown in Table 4.9-9 Additionally, only
sensitive uses as defined in the City's General Plan and that are regulated by the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior
noise standards are included in Table 4.9-1. As with construction activities occurring within the Specific Plan
Area, and as the City's exterior noise standards are given in CNEL, the construction noise levels associated with
the traffic improvements have been converted from Leq to CNEL. Because the difference between interior and
exterior noise levels are presumed to range between 20 and 30 dBA, interior noise levels were not calculated. (Id.)
As shown in Table 4.9-11 of the new Draft EIR, the sensitive uses adjacent to roadway improvement
construction activities could be exposed during the daytime to construction noise levels that exceed the City's
exterior noise standard of65 dBA CNEL. (Id)
Further, it should be noted that three of the locations identified for future off-site roadway improvements
are located in areas outside the jurisdiction of the City. These roadway segments include the following: Rosemead
Boulevard at Huntington Drive (County of Los Angeles); Duarte Road at Rosemead Boulevard (County of Los
Angeles); Huntington Drive and Sierra Madre Boulevard (San Marino). (Id.)
However, due to the locations of these intersections, in order to be implemented, these mitigation
measures must be permitted by a jurisdiction other than the City. If such permission is not given, then
construction would not take place and no construction noise impact would occur. If permission were to occur, it is
likely that such construction-related activity would be ministerial in action and would not require further CEQA
review as long as the information contained in this document still properly describes the proposed off-site
improvements and the analysis addresses all of the anticipated impacts. Additionally, if permission were given, it
is expected that the construction activity would be regulated in accordance with all requirements and ordinances
of Los Angeles County and the City of San Marino, respectively. (Jd.)
During construction activities, heavy trucks would transport equipment and materials to and from the
Specific Plan Area and to areas where roadway improvements would occur. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-38.) The
construction haul routes would include the use of Huntington Drive, Baldwin A venue, and the 1-210 and I-60S
Freeways; however, other approved routes could potentially be used during roadway improvement construction
activities. Heavy trucks typically generate intermittent noise levels ranging from 82 to 95 dBA (EP A 1971).
While these noise levels exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise levels for residential uses, the trucks generating
the noise would represent a small portion of the existing roadway noise levels, and the noises generated by these
trucks would only occur during construction of the proposed Project and associated roadway improvements and
would only occur from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during approved construction days in compliance with Sections
4261 and 4262 of the City's Municipal Code. (Id.)
124
However, although the construction activities would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL noise standard identified
in the General Plan at these off-site locations during roadway improvement construction activities, the increase in
noise levels would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although
occasional single-event disturbances from grading and concrete cutting are possible. Further, although the
construction noise levels for the roadway improvement construction activities are provided in CNEL, which is a
24-hour average Leq with noise penalties added during specific hours of the day to account for noise sensitivity in
the evening and nighttime, these noise levels associated with the proposed Project would only be generated during
12 hours of the day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and not for 24 hours. (Id.)
Currently, under Section 4261 (Prohibited Hours Defined) and Section 4262 (Construction Limited) in
Article IV of the City Municipal Code, construction activities are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and are prohibited on Sundays and the public holidays discussed in
Section 4.9.2 01 the EIR. As such, PR 4.9A has been incorporated (requiring that all construction activity within
the City shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and that
construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and the following public holidays: January 1 (New Year's
Day); Memorial Day; July 4 (Independence Day); Labor Day; Veteran's Day; Thanksgiving Day; December 25
(Christmas Day)." (MMRP at p. 3-78.)
The City exempts noise associated with construction as long as it occurs between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-39-40.) Through this exemption of
construction noise, the construction activities associated with the proposed Project, including traffic
improvements, would be exempt from the noise standards (Penman 2005). Construction noise occurring during
these hours is exempted because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of
evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise.
Consequently, the City considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than
significant. (Id.)
Under mitigation measure MM 4.9-I(a), the implementation of noise attenuation measures may include
the use of noise barriers (e.g., sound walls) or noise blankets. As a general rule of thumb, a sound wall is able to
reduce noise by 5 dBA. In addition, mitigation measure MM 4.9-I(b), which requires that construction staging
areas and earthmoving equipment be located as far away from noise and vibration-sensitive land uses as possible,
would also reduce construction-related noise levels. Additionally, under mitigation measure MM 4.13-3(a), the
City has pre-approved truck routes, which include, but is not limited to, Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive to
and from 1-210. Therefore, mitigation measure MM 4.13-3(a) would require that heavily loaded trucks traverse
along pre-approved routes only, which would serve to reduce noise impacts from construction related truck trips.
No other feasible mitigation measures are available. Because construction noise would be reduced where feasible,
and because construction noise is exempted by the provisions in Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code,
this impact would be less than significant. (ld)
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project could expose grooms residing on site in
temporary living quarters associated with Santa Anita Park to noise levels that exceed the noise standards
established by the City in the Noise Element of the General Plan. This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would reduce this impact, but
noise levels could still be substantial. However, the Project's construction noise impacts would be temporary,
would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the exemption for construction
noise that exists in Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered
less than significant. (ld.)
During construction of the proposed Project within the Specific Plan Area, the grooms residing in
temporary living quarters within the horse stables associated with Santa Anita Park would be impacted by noise
levels that exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL exterior standard for residential uses. Based on the information
presented in Table 4.9-9 of the new Draft EIR, construction noise levels could reach approximately 86 dBA
within 25 feet of the construction activities. The existing Gate 8 entrance from Baldwin A venue to the Specific
125 .
Plan Area and to Westfield Santa Anita would be improved, as previously described, which would require the
demolition of all or part of four structures in the stable area: Stables 126 and 135 (horse barn) and buildings 64
and 64A (grooms quarters/tack rooms). Stables and grooms quarters located adjacent to these buildings and the
reconfigured ring road could experience noise levels of up to 86 dBA, which would exceed the 65 dBA exterior
noise limit established by the City's General Plan for residential uses. In addition, jackhammering would also
occur on Baldwin A venue for Gate 8 improvements as well as the establishment of water connections. Because
jackhammering would occur adjacent to the existing temporary living quarters on the western most boundary of
the Specific Plan Area, the nearest temporary living quarters could experience noise levels up to 94 dBA.
However, and as stated above, construction related noise levels are exempt from the City's standards by
Section 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code. Further, mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b)
would reduce this impact. Because construction noise would be reduced where feasible, and because construction
noise is exempted by the provisions in Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code, this impact would be less
than significant. (Id.)
Operation of the proposed Project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses on site to noise levels that
exceed the standards established by the City. Compliance with the identified project requirement would ensure
that this impact would remain less than significant. (Id.)
Sources of noise generated by implementation of the proposed Project would include new stationary
sources, such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC) systems for the office and commercial
uses. The proposed Project would also introduce new activity and noise to the area as people are attracted to the
new commercial uses that would develop as part of the proposed Project. The City has not established exterior
noise restrictions for commercial, retail, or restaurant uses; however, based on the City ,guidelines, exterior noise
levels of 70 dBA CNEL or lower are "normally acceptable" for development of these types of uses. Noise
monitoring on the Project Site indicates that existing noise levels on site do not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL
"normally acceptable" guideline shown in the City's General Plan for office and commercial establishments.
Consequently, the Project Site would meet acceptable noise levels for office and commercial uses. (new Draft EIR
at p. 4.9-41.)
HV AC systems would be installed for the new retail-commercial buildings located within the Specific
Plan Area. Large HV AC systems associated with these retail-commercial buildings can result in noise levels that
average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. As 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about
6.7 dBA greater than 24-hour Leq measurements, this means that the HV AC equipment associated with the retail-
commercial buildings could generate community noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet
when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. These HV AC units would be mounted on the rooftops
of the proposed buildings and would be screened from view by building features. In addition, the structures within
the Specific Plan Area would also vary in height. For instance, the larger, "anchor" retail buildings would be one-
to two-story structures. The small- and medium-sized in-line retail buildings proposed on site would also be one-
to two-story structures, with office uses located on a second floor above the single-story in-line retail stores. Due
to the various building heights proposed within the Specific Plan Area and the location of office units above the
retail-commercial stores, the office uses on site could be exposed to noise associated with the HV AC systems for
the commercial uses that are mounted on the rooftops of buildings. Because some of the proposed on-site
buildings are located within 50 feet from each other, the potential exists for receptors in the offices to be exposed
to noise levels above 70 dBA CNEL resulting from the retail-commercial HV AC systems. However, the
installation of shielding around these HV AC systems would be required as part of the proposed Project, as stated
in the Specific Plan. PR 4.9B shall be incorporated, to require the Developer to provide proper shielding for all
new HV AC systems used by the proposed retail-commercial buildings. (MMRP at p. 3-81.)
The shielding installed around these systems would typically reduce noise levels by approximately
15 dBA, which could reduce HV AC system noise to approximately 50 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment,
which would be approximately 56.7 dBA CNEL. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-42.) While the City does not have
exterior noise restrictions for commercial and office uses, implementation of PR 4.9B would ensure that impacts
related to the HV AC systems would remain below the 70 dBA CNEL guideline established in the City's General
126
Plan. As such impacts to patrons or workers of the proposed Project relating to HV AC systems would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (Id)
Aside from mechanical equipment, such as HV AC, at commercial uses, normal human activity would
increase noise levels as patrons take advantage of the commercial uses that would be part of the proposed Project.
These operational noise levels are expected to be approximately the same as those at other similar types of uses.
To determine what operational noise levels could be expected, IS-minute noise monitoring was conducted during
a weekday morning farmers' market event; a weeknight; a Saturday morning farmers' market event; and a
Saturday night at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica. These measurements were conducted in order to
make a realistic projection of ambient noise levels from human activity during project operation. During the
weekday farmers' market, the Leq was 64.6 dBA. The weeknight measurement's Leq was 67.6 dBA. The
Saturday morning farmers' market Leq was 60.2 dBA, and the Saturday night measurement was 75.6 dBA.
Because activity at the Third Street Promenade during the monitoring is anticipated to be roughly similar to
activity that would occur in and around the commercial areas of the proposed Project, noise levels would also be
expected to be roughly equivalent. Further, human activity would only be present at the proposed Project during
hours of operation and not during a 24-hour period. As such, the IS-minute Leq is a more accurate tool for
evaluating potential noise impacts that could result from human activity during operation of the proposed Project.
(ld.)
The proposed Specific Plan allows public gatherings or events that are customarily held in shopping
centers, such as street fairs (including live unamplified musical performances or recorded background music), arts
and crafts shows, flower shows, holiday celebrations, "Mommy & Me" and similar events, outdoor promotional
or sales activities related to the primary product lines of retail businesses in the CE zoned area and similar events,
such as book or poetry readings, stand-up performances, receptions conducted by a cafe, restaurant, art gallery, or
retail store, "sidewalk sales," and emergency public health and safety activities. As shown, human activity during
nighttime operation of the proposed Project has the potential to reach levels up to 75 dBA, which would be above
the City's guideline for office uses; however, as the 75.6 dBA represents a weekend night, it is anticipated that the
office uses associated with the proposed Project would not be occupied during that time. It should be noted that
the Third Street Promenade does allow amplified music, which was the major source of on-site measured noise
during three of the four measurements. Consequently, daytime non-traffic noise levels at the proposed Project
would probably be close to 65 Leq at any given time during the day. Leq levels in the low or mid 60s would not
be substantial enough to exceed those levels considered acceptable for commercial and office uses according to
the Arcadia General Plan. (ld.)
Besides the 24-hour noise (CNEL) standards found in the General Plan Noise Element, the Arcadia
Municipal Code also sets noise limits for amplified noise sources that would occur for discrete periods of time, as
shown in Table 4.9-8 of the new Draft EIR. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-43.) Monitored noise levels at the location
100 feet from the Arcadia wash (which is adjacent to the Southern Fa9ade of the Racetrack Grandstand) averaged
50.8 dBA Leq, and noise levels at the location 800 feet from the wash averaged 53.8 dBA Leq, as shown in Table
4.9-5 of the new Draft EIR and represented by location A and B respectively. Maximum noise levels recorded
during the monitoring at 100 and 800 feet from the wash were 70.6 dBA Lmax and 74.9 dBA Lmax respectively.
However, the CNEL for thesc locations was calculated to be 49.5 CNEL and 52.5 CNEL respectively. Therefore,
ambient noise levels associated with the Racetrack would be below the 70 dBA CNEL guideline that is
considered "normally acceptable" for commercial and office uses by the General Plan. (ld.)
The ambient noise levels represented by locations A and B, also demonstrate that noise levels from
roadways adjacent to the proposed Project would not impact patrons of the commercial entertainment center.
Locations A and B represent areas within the Specific Plan Area where the majority of development is proposed
to occur. As shown by the 49.5 dBA CNEL and 52.5 dBA CNEL respectively, noise levels from roadways
adjacent to the Project Site do not exceed the 70 dBA CNEL guideline for commercial and office use by the
General Plan. As such, no adverse no adverse effects will occur on the Project from adjacent influences, such as
traffic noise from adjacent roadways. (ld)
127
Noise associated with parking structures is not of sufficient volume to exceed community standards based
on the time-weighted CNEL scale. Parking structures can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine
start-ups and acceleration, and the activation of car alarms. The current use of the majority of the proposed Project
area is currently utilized as on-site parking for Santa Anita Park during racing season. One hour noise
measurements during racing season taken within the parking area are represented by location A and B, as
illustrated in Figure 4.9-1 (Noise Monitoring Locations) of the new Draft EIR. (Id) An . additional one hour
measurement was taken at location C, which is currently zoned as R-I; however, the Specific Plan would restrict
uses allowed in the R-I zone on the northern parking lot to parking and infrastructure uses and would prohibit
new residential uses. (Id. at p. 4.9-43-44.) As such, location C is not relevant to this impact analysis. Location A
had a one hour Leq level of 50.8 dBA, and a 24-hour CNEL of 49.5 dBA, while location B had a one hour Leq
level of 53.8 dBA and a 24-hour CNEL of 52.5; therefore, it is reasonable to expect similar Leq and CNEL noise
levels within the Specific Plan parking areas. (Id.)
The closest sensitive receptors to the west parking structure within the Project area would be the grooms'
quarters and the stables, with the closest stable located approximately 154 feet from the parking deck. Parking
structures can generate Leq noise levels of between 49 dBA Leq (tire squeals) to 74 dBA Leq (car alarms) at
50 feet. Due to the high level of traffic noise along streets surrounding the Project Site, normal daytime parking
structure Leq noise would not likely be audible due to the masking of noise by traffic on nearby roadways.
Further, as the commercial entertainment development would screen patrons from the parking structures, as well
as the distance from the proposed parking to the grooms residences, it is unlikely that noise associated with
parking structures would exceed the 65 dBA CNEL exterior limit for grooms residing on site, nor would parking
noises exceed the 70 dBA CNEL guideline for commercial uses. (Id.)
Other noise sources that may be associated with the parking structure areas include the use of sweepers in
the early morning or late evening hours. Noise levels generated by sweepers are generally higher than parking lot
noise associated with automobile activities. Sweepers can generate noise levels of 68 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet for
normal sweeping activities; however, as with the other parking lot noises, the distance from sensitive receptors, as
well as intervening structures, would reduce noise levels generated by sweepers such that this impact would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
Another component of the Racetrack is the Simulcast Center, which would be integrated into the west
wing of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand. The Simulcast Center, while an integral part of the proposed Project,
would not generate noise that would be noticeable by nearby receptors, as operational activity associated with the
Simulcast Center would be confined to indoor areas, and so any noise would be attenuated and minimal outside of
the Center. Further, the Simulcast Center represents the continuation and some expansion of existing uses within
the Grandstand; consequently, the sources and types of noise would not change. (Id.)
The non-traffic operational noise most likely to affect patrons and commercial and office users would be
commercial rooftop equipment that would be near the offices in the commercial and office environment. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.9-44.) Because rooftop equipment such as HV AC systems would be the source of substantial
noise associated with non-vehicular operation of the Project, implementation of PR 4.9B would ensure that the
exterior noise levels experienced by the future patrons and commercial and office uses within the Specific Plan.
Area would be below the 70 dBA CNEL guideline for those uses. Also, as discussed above, amplified sound from
the Racetrack would be consistent with the standards established in the Noise Element of the General Plan.
Therefore, the impact associated with noise generated by non-vehicular operations within the Specific Plan Area
would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (ld)
Operation of the proposed Project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses off site to noise levels that
exceed the standards established by the City. This is considered a less-thall-significant impact. (Id. at p. 4.9-45.)
Stationary noise sources within the Specific Plan Area that may affect off-site sensitive receptors would
primarily consist of the new HV AC systems serving the retail-commercial buildings which, could generate noise
. levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet when the equipment is operating constantly for 24
hours. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the Specific Plan Area are the residential uses (including the
128
convalescent home) and Methodist Hospital located to the south and east, respectively, along Huntington Drive.
The residential uses are located approximatelY 210 feet from the southern boundary of the Specific Plan Area and
approximately 710 feet from the nearest proposed retail-commercial buildings (Buildings H, G, I), while the
patient wings and Main building of the Methodist Hospital are located approximately 87 feet from the eastern
boundary of the Specific Plan Area and approximately 625 feet from the nearest proposed retail-commercial
buildings (Building E). Noise levels would diminish with distance from the Specific Plan Area, at a rate of
approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, the noise levels generated by the HV AC equipment
associated with the new retail commercial buildings would be approximately 50 dBA CNEL at the off-site
residential uses and 51 dBA CNEL at the hospital. The installation of shielding around the HV AC systems would
be required as part of the proposed Project, which would typically reduce noise levels by approximately 15 dBA.
Consequently, the residential uses and the hospital would experience noise levels of 35 dBA CNEL and 36 dBA
CNEL, respectively, from the HV AC equipment. Under the Municipal Code Section 4610.3(c) (Noise Limits),
sound or noise generated from air-conditioning equipment, pumps, fans, or similar machinery that is received on
residentially zoned property may not exceed 55 dBA. Because the noise levels that would be experienced by the
residential uses to the south of the Specific Plan Area (the closest residential sensitive receptors) would be below
55 dBA CNEL, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. For the hospital, the
resulting noise levels from the HY AC equipment would not exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA
CNEL for outdoor living areas and this impact would also be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
Operation of the proposed Project would involve a 24-hour delivery schedule to accommodate the timely
delivery of fresh produce, dairy, and other perishable products for the gourmet retail food market and restaurants
associated with the commercial entertainment zone. Four loading docks will be developed to accommodate these
operations. Two loading docks will be on the western portion of the Specific Plan Area, located adjacent to the
westem end of Building P and the West Parking Deck, and on the western end of Building K. The other two will
be on eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area, located between Building E and Building F, and another adjacent
the East Parking Deck and Building C. Two noise sources would be identified with delivery operations: the noise
of the diesel engines of the semi-trailer trucks and the backup beeper alarm that sounds when a truck is put in
reverse, as is required and regulated by Cal-OSHA. (!d.)
The noise generated by idling diesel engines typically range between 64 to 66 dBA at 75 feet. This noise
would be temporary in nature, typically lasting no more than five minutes. In fact, MM 4.2-2(0) identified in
Section 4-2 (Air Quality) requires that trucks staged in the loading area would be required to turn off their engines
if delivery operations would last longer than five minutes. Backup beepers are required by Cal-OSHA to be at
least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These devices are highly directional in nature. The design of the loading
docks is such that a minimum amount of reverse motion would be required, and when in reverse the trucks and
the beeper alarm would be directed towards the loading area and adjacent structures. Backup beepers are, of
course, intended to warn persons who are standing behind the vehicle when it is backing up. (!d. at 4.9-46.)
Further, the loading docks located along the western portion of the Specific Plan Area would be screened
from any sensitive uses by intervening structures such as the Westfield Santa Anita mall. Therefore, the closest
loading dock to sensitive uses would be located on the eastern portion of the Project Site, approximately 600 feet
from the nearest sensitive receptor, which is the patient wings and Main building of the Methodist Hospital. (Id.)
The noise emitted by backup beepers is highly directional, and the loading platform of the proposed loading docks
is facing away from the Methodist Hospital, which would further reduce the noise levels at distances of over 600
feet away from the source. As such, the Leq noise levels generated by delivery operations would not likely be
audible due to distances from sensitive receptors, the highly directional nature of backup beepers, the amount of
shielding by intervening structures, and masking by roadway traffic noise. While the perceived noise levels would
be greater in evening and early morning hours, it is unlikely that such noise would adversely impact occupants of
the Methodist Hospital, the closest sensitive receptor to the eastern loading docks. Further, while delivery
activities would potentially occur anytime over a 24-hour day, the noise produced by these activities would be
temporary in nature, as idling diesel engines would be required to be turned off after 5 minutes and the backup
129
beepers would only be used while a delivery truck were in reverse. Therefore, this impact is less than significant,
and no mitigation is required. (ld.)
Refuse collection would also be a source of noise resulting from implementation of the proposed Project.
The City Municipal Code Section 5120.9 regulates commercial refuse collection and states that collection shall
occur Sunday through Saturday between the hours of7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Refuse collection that occurs during
these recognized hours of operation would be exempt from the City's noise standards. As such, this impact is less
than significant, and no mitigation is required. (Id.)
Operation of the proposed Project would increase traffic levels, but would not contribute to the exposure
of persons off site to noise levels in excess of established standards of the cities and jurisdictions outside of the
City. (Id. at pp. 4.9-53-54.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
As shown in Table 4.9-12 and Table 4.9-13 of the new Draft EIR, roadway segments within Los Angeles
County, the City of San Marino, and Temple City would be above the exterior noise limits for each jurisdiction
with implementation of the proposed Project. However, Section 12.08.570 of the Los Angeles County Municipal
Code exempts all legal vehicles within the public right-of-way. Therefore, the increase in roadway noise levels
associated with the proposed Project would be exempt from the standards established in Section 12.08.390 of the
Los Angeles County Municipal Code. (Id.)
Similarly, the City of San Marino Municipal Code, Section 14.04.13(A) exempts "sound produced by
motor vehicles regulated by sound limitation provisions of the California Vehicle Code when such vehicle is
located or operated on any public street or highway." Therefore the increase in roadway noise levels associated
with the proposed Project would be exempt for the standards established in Section 14.04.05 of the City of San
Marino Municipal Code. Additionally, Temple City has established exemptions in Section 9284(A) of the
Municipal Code which states, "sound produced by motor vehicles as regulated by sound limitation provisions of
the California Vehicle Code when such vehicle is located or operated on any public street, right of way or
highway." As such, roadway noise levels are exempt from Temple City's Municipal Code Section 9281
Standards. Therefore, as the increase in roadway noise levels would be exempt from noise level standards
established by Los Angeles County, the City of San Marina and Temple City, this impact would be considered
less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id)
In order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels, more than one source
emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to a noise receptor. Construction
activity of the Westfield Santa Expansion is located adjacent to the proposed Project, and construction activity
associated with this Project may overlap with construction activity for the proposed Project. Thus, a cumulative
increase in construction noise levels could result, however, Section 4261 and 4262 in Article IV of the City
Municipal Code contains an exemption for construction noise. Due to this exemption, the cumulative temporary
noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City in the Noise Element of the General Plan
would be considered less than significant. The Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable
because noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be exempt.
The Project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-93)
AEA Modifications: As identified in the Draft EIR, construction noise associated with the proposed
Project (including the AEA Modifications) would remain exempt pursuant to the provisions in Sections 4261 and
4262 of the Municipal Code. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-28.) Construction-related noise and vibration impacts that
would potentially adversely affect grooms and horses associated with Santa Anita Park would occur under both
the Project as now proposed with the AEA Modifications and as previously analyzed in the Draft EIR without
them. Because the cinema/theater building, the retail building, and the West Parking Garage would be located
farther away from the stables under the AEA Modifications, construction noise and groundborne vibration
impacts would be reduced for both grooms and horses. Additionally, while the support pylons associated with the
West Parking Garage and the Wash cover would be at slightly different depths than that evaluated in the Draft
EIR, the construction techniques associated with placement of the pylons would be the same as that evaluated in
the Draft EIR. As such, the AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe
130
environmental impacts with respect to construction-related noise and vibration impacts than the project conditions
analyzed in the Draft EIR. Impacts would be lessened by the AEA Modifications due to a reduction of overall
square footage and the fact that the Saddling Bam would be retained (in large part), rather than demolished. (Id.)
The AEA Modifications would not result in new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in
environmental impacts with respect to operational noise levels, beyond those described in the new Draft EIR. The
AEA projects that, based on the reduction of square footage under the AEA Modifications, daily retail trips would
be reduced by approximately 0.9 percent, while the reduction in screens and seats under the AEA Modifications
would reduce the daily cinema/theater trips by approximately 0.8 percent, representing a total reduction of less
than two percent in daily trips. Nonetheless, roadway noise levels would not be substantially reduced from that
evaluated in the new Draft EIR. Even with a 2 percent reduction in vehicle trips due to the potential project
modifications, noise levels on the roadway segment of Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and
Huntington Drive East would still increase by 5.1 dBA, which would exceed the 5 dBA significance standard.
Therefore, while the AEA Modifications would result in a decrease in roadway noise levels, the reduction in noise
levels would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. No new significant environmental impacts or
substantial increase in environmental impacts would occur with respect to operational noise levels. Impacts would
be similar to the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Id.) See also discussion in Section III below
for an explanation of the effect of the AEA Modifications on Noise impacts.
Cumulative Imoacts. As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no cumulative impact would occur. The
Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than
significant.
Impact: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise levels? In specific, would construction activities associated with the proposed Project
generate or expose persons or structures off site to excessive ground-borne vibration? Also, would construction
activities associated with the proposed Project expose grooms residing on site in temporary living quarters
associated with Santa Anita Park to excessive ground-borne vibration? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-54, Impacts 4.9-7,
and 4.9-8)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at p. 53-54.) Compliance with the identified project requirement and
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(b) and MM 4.13-3(a) would further reduce this less-than-
significant impact and ensure that the proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-1 (a)-(b) and M 4.13-3(a). (MMRP at p. 3-83.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not generate or expose persons
or structures off site to excessive ground-borne vibration. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-54-63; Final EIR AEA at p.
27.) This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.) Compliance with the identified project requirement
and)mplementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(b) and MM 4. 13-3(a) would further reduce this less- than-
significant impact. (Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at p. 2-59.) Construction activities associated with the
proposed Project could expose grooms residing on site in temporary living quarters associated with Santa Anita
Park to excessive ground-borne vibration. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the
identified project requirement and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would
reduce this impact, but vibration levels could still be substantial. (Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at pp. 2-
59-60.) However, the Project's construction vibration impacts would be temporary, would not occur during
recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the exemption for construction vibration that exists in
Sections 4261 and 4262 of the Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
(Id.)
Vibration Impact on Off-Site Sensitive Uses: Construction activities that would occur under the proposed
Project within the Specific Plan Area would include excavation, which would have the potential to generate low
131
levels of ground-borne vibration. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-56.) Table 4.9-4 of the new Draft EIR identifies various
vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate within the Specific Plan Area
during construction. Based on the information presented in Table 4.9-3 of the new Draft EIR, vibration levels
could reach as high as approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of the Specific Plan Area. Construction activities
occurring under the proposed Project would, therefore, have the potential to impact the nearest sensitive receptors
to the Specific Plan Area, as shown in Table 4.9-14 of the new Draft EIR. (ld. at pp. 54-57)
As shown in Table 4.9-14 of the new Draft EIR, given the distance of the off-site sensitive uses from the
Specific Plan Area, the vibration levels experienced at the property lines of these off-site sensitive receptors could
reach up to approximately 76.9 VdB at the Barnhart School, located north of the Specific Plan Area along
Colorado Place. Even if construction were to occur closer to sensitive receptors than the distances indicated in
Table 4.9-14, the construction would have to be within approximately 25 feet of the use to exceed the 85 VdB
threshold established by the FT A for human annoyance. As none of the off-site sensitive uses are calculated to be
within 25 feet of construction activity at any location, ground-borne vibration would not exceed the FTA's
vibration impact thresholds for human annoyance, and this impact would be less than significant. However,
implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 (b) would ensure that less-than-significant construction-related
vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be further minimized during construction of the
proposed Project by requiring the operation of vibration-generating equipment as far away from vibration-
sensitive sites as feasible. (Id.)
Although trenching would also occur within the Specific Plan Area for the installation of utility lines, the
construction equipment that is expected to be used for this activity would be either small backhoes or trenchers.
The ground-borne vibration levels generated from either of these pieces of equipment would not be greater than
the vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer, which has been determined to be 87 V dB at 25 feet; however,
the closest construction activities within the Specific Plan Area to an off-Site sensitive receptor would be
approximately 80 feet. Consequently, as with other construction activities on site, the ground-borne vibration
levels resulting from trenching activities within the Specific Plan Area would not exceed FT A established
threshold for human annoyance of 85 VdB. Therefore, the vibration impacts resulting from trenching activities
associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
Table 4.9-15 of the new Draft EIR shows the approximate vibration levels that could be experienced by
surrounding sensitive uses due to construction activities occurring at the roadways designated for improvements.
Such activities would include widening, re-striping, and/or reconfiguration of roadway segments and
intersections. Such activities would involve the use of jackhammers, small bulldozers, bobcats, and transport
trucks. The use of such equipment could expose sensitive receptors located along these roadways to ground-borne
vibration levels of up to 87 VdB at distances of25 feet, as shown in Table 4.9-4 of the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
As shown in Table 4.9-15, given the distance of the off-site sensitive uses from the roadway improvement
construction activities, the vibration levels experienced at the property lines of these off-site sensitive receptors
could reach up to approximately 80 VdB at the Holy Angels Church and the adjacent convalescent home located
along Huntington Drive. Even if construction were to occur closer to sensitive receptors than the distances
indicated in Table 4.9-15, the construction would have to be within approximately 25 feet of the sensitive receptor
to exceed the 85 VdB threshold for human annoyance as established by the FT A. As none of the off-site sensitive
uses are calculated to be within 25 feet of construction activity at any location, ground-borne vibration would not
exceed the FT A's vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, and this impact would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (ld.)
However, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 (b) would ensure that construction-related
vibration impacts to humans would be further minimized during construction of the proposed Project by requiring
the operation of vibration-generating equipment as far away from vibration-sensitive sites as possible. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.9-59.) Further, the exposure of sensitive uses to excessive ground-borne vibration levels would be
temporary in nature and would only occur during approved hours under Section 4261 and Section 4262 in Article
IV of the City Municipal Code, as construction activities are limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
132
p.m. Monday through Saturday, and are prohibited on Sundays and the public holidays discussed in sub-
Section 4.9.2 of the new Draft EIR, and required with implementation of PR 4.9A. As construction related noise
is exempt from the City's standards, construction related vibration impacts would also be exempt in accordance
with Municipal Code Section 4261 and Section 4262. (Id.)
Vibration Impact on Structures: In addition, as discussed under Thresholds of Significance in sub-
Section 4.9.3 (Project Impacts and Mitigation) of the new Draft EIR, the FTA's vibration damage threshold for
fragile buildings is approximately 100 VdB, while the vibration damage threshold for extremely fragile historic
buildings is approximately 95 VdB. There are currently no off-site historic buildings adjacent to the Specific Plan
Area. The nearest off-site structures that would experience vibration levels from construction equipment operating
within the Specific Plan Area would be the structures associated with the Westfield Santa Anita, which are neither
historic or vibration-sensitive structures, immediately to the west of the construction area. As these structures are
located approximately 75 feet from the western boundary of the Specific Plan Area, the vibration levels
experienced at these structures could reach up to approximately 77 YdB, which would not exceed the FTA's
vibration damage threshold for fragile and extremely fragile historic buildings. (Id.) As such, the vibration
impacts on off-site structures resulting from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be
less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id.)
Construction Truck Vibration Impacts: Heavy trucks would be used to transport materials to and from the
Specific Plan Area when construction activities occur. The construction haul route would include use of
Huntington Drive, Baldwin A venue, and the 1-210 and 1-605 Freeways. These trucks typically generate ground-
borne vibration velocity levels of around 63 YdB. These levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks pass over bumps
in the road. The ground-borne vibration velocity levels generated by these trucks would be less than the FTA's
vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, and the 100 VdB vibration impact threshold for
fragile buildings. Thus, impacts related to ground-borne vibration from heavy trucks would be less than
significant. No mitigation is required. (ld)
Additionally, and as identified in Section 4.13 (Transportationffraffic) as mll1gation measure
MM 4.13-3(a) of the new Draft EIR, the City has pre-approved truck routes, which include, but are not limited to,
Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive to and from I-2l O. Therefore, mitigation measure MM 4.13-3(a) would
require that heavily loaded trucks traverse along pre-approved routes only, which would serve to further reduce
less-than-significant vibration impacts from construction related truck trips. (ld.)
As the operation of construction equipment within the Specific Plan Area would not expose the nearby
residences and hospital to perceptible vibration levels exceeding the FTA's vibration impact threshold of85 VdB
for human annoyance, and would not exceed the FTA's 100 YdB for fragile buildings off-site, impacts associated
with ground-borne vibration IVould be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (Id. at 4.9-60.)
During construction of the proposed Project within the Specific Plan Area, the grooms residing in
temporary living quarters within the horse stables associated with Santa Anita Park would be impacted by ground-
borne vibration levels. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-60-61.) Based on the information presented in Table 4.9-4 of the
new Draft EIR, vibration levels could reach approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of the construction activities.
The existing Gate 8 entrance from Baldwin Avenue to the Specific Plan Area and to Westfield Santa Anita would
be improved, as previously described, which would require the demolition of all or part of four stable buildings:
Stables 124 and 135 ( horse barn) and buildings 64 and 64 A (grooms quarters/tack rooms). Stables and grooms
quarters located adjacent to these buildings and the reconfigured ring road could experience vibration levels of up
to 87 VdB, which would exceed the 85 VdB vibration impact threshold established by tbe FTA for human
annoyance. In addition, jackhammering would also occur on Baldwin Avenue for Gate 8 improvements as well as
the establishment of water connections. Because jackhammering would occur adjacent to the existing temporary
living quarters on the western most boundary of the Specific Plan Area, the nearest temporary living quarters
could experience vibration levels of up to 87 YdB. Mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would
reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level; however, the exposure of grooms to excessive ground-
borne vibration levels would be temporary in nature and would only occur during approved hours under
133
Section 4261 and Section 4262 in Article IV of the City Municipal Code, as construction activities are limited to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and are prohibited on Sundays and the
public holidays discussed in sub-Section 4.9.2 of the new Draft EIR, and required with implementation of
PR 4.9A. As construction related noise is exempt from the City's standards, construction related vibration impacts
would also be exempt in accordance with Municipal Code Section 4261 and Section 4262. As such, this impact
would be considered less than significant. (Id.) See also PR 4.9A for further mitigation to this impact. (MMRP at
p.3-83.)
AEA Modifications: Construction-related noise and vibration impacts that would potentially adversely
affect grooms and horses associated with Santa Anita Park would occur under the proposed Project with the AEA
Modifications, but would be less than the impacts from the project without the AEA Modifications as evaluated in
the new Draft EIR. Because the cinema/theater building, the retail building, and the West Parking Garage would
be located farther away from the stables under the AEA Modifications, construction noise and groundborne
vibration impacts would be rcduced for both grooms and horses. Additionally, while the support pylons associated
with the West Parking Garage and the Wash cover would be at slightly different depths than that evaluated in the
new Draft EIR, the construction techniques associated with placement of the pylons would be the same as that
evaluated in the new Draft EIR. As such, the AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more
severe environmental impacts with respect to construction-related noise and vibration impacts. Impacts would be
less than the proposed project without the AEA Modifications evaluated in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction
of overall square footage under the AEA Modifications and the fact that the Saddling Barn would be retained (in
large part), rather than demolished. (Final EIR AEA at p. 27.)
Cumulative Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would produce temporary vibration impacts
that would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the Arcadia area, including the pending Westfield
Santa Anita expansion, is not considered likely to result in the exposure of on-site or off-site receptors or
structures to excessive ground-borne vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts, the fact that all
construction would not occur at the same time and at the same location, and the largely built-out nature of the City
which would usually precludc the use of heavy equipment, such as builldozers. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-82). For
a combined vibration impact with Westfield Santa Anita, heavy construction activity would have to occur within
50 feet of any receptor. Because the proposed Project's building construction is not expected to occur within 50
feet of Westfield Santa Anita, vibration from Project construction is not likely to result in a significant cumulative
impact. The contribution of the proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative
impact of the Project would be less than significant.
With regard to grooms residing in the temporary living quarters in the Specific Plan area, construction of
the proposed project would produce temporary vibration impacts that would be less than significant. Cumulative
development in the Arcadia area, including the pending Westfield Santa Anita expansion, is not considered likely
to result in the exposure of grooms to excessive ground-bome vibration due to the localized nature of vibration
impacts, and the fact that all construction would not occur at the same time and at the same location. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.9-82). For a combined vibration impact with the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion, heavy construction
activity would have to occur within 50 feet of the grooms' temporary living quarters. While the proposed
Project's building construction and Westfield Santa Anita Expansion construction may occur within 50 feet of
grooms' temporary living quarters, vibration from Project construction is not likely to result in a significant
cumulative impact since construction related noise is exempt from the City's standards, and therefore,
construction vibration would also be exempt in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 4261 and 4262.
Because no significant vibration impacts would occur during operation of the proposed Project, it is not
anticipated that other related projects, such as the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion, would result in vibration
impacts during their project operations. As a result, there would be no cumulative operational ground-bome
vibration impact to any on- or off-site receptor. The contribution of the proposed Proejct to such an impact would
not be cumulatively considerable, and the cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be less than
significant.
134
Impact: Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-74, Impacts 4.9-14, 4.9-16,
4.9-17 and 4.9-18)
Finding: Changes or alter~tions have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (ld.) Compliance with mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would reduce this impact
and ensure that the proposed Project would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. (ld. at p. 74; Final EIR AEA pp. 26-
28.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-I(a)-(b) and MM 4. I 3-3(a). (MMRP at p. 3-85.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary
or periodic increase in ambient noise levels such that grooms located in temporary living quarters on site would
be exposed to excessive noise. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-74-78.) This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would reduce this impact, but
noise levels could still be substantial. However, the Project's construction noise impacts would be temporary,
would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the exemption for construction
noise that exists in Section 4261 and 4262 in Article IV of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would
be considered less than significant. (ld.) Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result
in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at off-site locations within the City. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9 I (a) and MM 4.9
\(b), as well as M.M 4.13 3(a), would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the
Project's construction noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and
would be consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in Section 4261 and 4262 in Article IV
of the City Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. (ld.) Operation of
the proposed Project would result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at on-site locations
during race days, but would not exceed the acceptable noise guidelines provided in the General Plan. This is
considered a less-than-significant impact. Operation of the proposed Project would not result in temporary or
periodic increases in ambient noise levels that would adversely affect the horses or grooms located on site or
noise sensitive receptors off-site. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
Based on the information provided in Table 4.9-9 of the new Draft EIR, noise levels could exceed
80 dBA Leq at the horse stables, where the grooms' quarters are located. The existing ambient noise levels within
the portion of the Specific Plan Area where the horse stables are located is 55.7 dBA Leq (location No. 12);
construction activities associated with the proposed Project, therefore, could result in an increase in noise levels of
approximately 24.3 dBA Leq at the horse stables where the grooms quarters are located. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 (a) would require implementation of construction BMPs
to reduce construction noise levels. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-I(b) would
require the locating of construction staging areas and earthmoving equipment as far away as possible from noise-
and vibration-sensitive land lIses. Although these noise attenuation measures would reduce the construction noise
levels of the proposed Project, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels would still occur at the horse stables
and grooms quarters. However, Section 4261 and Section 4262 in Article IV of the City Municipal Code exempts
construction noise between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, and the impacts associated with
construction noise are considered by the City to be less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant. (ld.)
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels at off-site locations within the City. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-1(a) and MM 4.9-I(b), as well as
MM 4.13-3(a), would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the Project's
construction noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be
135
consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in Section 4261 and 4262 in Article IV of the City
Municipal Code. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. (!d.)
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project during the daytime could result in noise
levels as high as 86 dBA Leq at the Methodist Hospital building, located east of the Specific Plan Area.
Furthermore, and as shown in Table 4.9-11 of the new Draft EIR, Holy Angeles Church and its associated school
could be exposed to noise levels as high as 82.0 dBA Leq during construction activities associated with roadway
improvements. These construction activities could potentially represent a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels at the off-site sensitive use locations. However, the construction activities
associated with the proposed Project would only occur during the permitted hours designated in Section 4261 and
4262 in Article IV of the City Municipal Code, and thus would not occur during recognized sleep hours or on
days that residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. (Id.)
The Methodist Hospital, however, would likely have medical patients within its facility 24 hours a day,
and so construction of the proposed Project would occur during times when patients could potentially be trying to
sleep. In addition, the convalescent home located along Huntington Drive, the Holy Angels Church and associated
school located along Campus Drive, and the elementary school located along Colorado Place would also be
affected by construction noise, as they operate during the daytime. Even with exterior-to-interior noise reduction
levels of about 30 dBA within the hospital, convalescent home, Holy Angels Church, and classrooms of the two
elementary schools, the interior noise levels at some of these locations could still exceed the established General
Plan interior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq for hospitals/convalescent facilities, places of worship, and
classrooms. The predicted interior noise levels at these uses are shown in Table 4.9-18 of the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
Mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a), MM 4.9-1(b), and MM 4. I 3-3(a) would serve to reduce construction
noise to the extent possible. Further, Section 4261 and 4262 in Article IV of the City Municipal Code contains an
exemption for construction noise. Due to this exemption, the temporary increases in ambient noise at off-site
locations associated with construction activities of the proposed Project would be considered less than significant.
(Id.)
Operation of the proposed Project would result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels
at on-site locations during race days, but would not exceed the acceptable noise guidelines provided in the
General Plan. This is considered a less-than-significant impact. Operation of the proposed Project would not
include special events or temporary activities which would cause an increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore,
there would be no temporary or periodic noise impacts to off-site receptors due to operation of the proposed
Project. (Id.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the building of new commercial and office uses in
the vicinity of the existing Santa Anita Racetrack and could expose the proposed commercial and office uses to
Racetrack-related noise. The Racetrack-related noise would be 49.5 dBA CNEL and 52.5 dBA CNEL for
distances of 100 feet and 800 feet from the Racetrack, respectively. The noise exposure during a race would be
below the 70 dBA CNEL acceptable noise guideline in the General Plan for commercial and office uses. Because
horse race related increases in ambient noise levels would remain acceptable under the guidelines articulated in
the General Plan, this impact would be considered less than significant. (Id.)
Operation of the proposed Project would not result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise
levels that would adversely affect the horses or grooms located on site or noise sensitive receptors off-site. This is
considered a less-than-significant impact. (Id)
Parking structures can be a source of annoyance due to automobile engine start-ups and acceleration, and
the activation of car alarms. The closest sensitive receptors within the Project area would be the grooms' quarters
and the stables, with the closest stable located approximately 154 feet from the parking deck. Parking structures
can generate Leq noise levels of between 49 dBA Leq (tire squeals) to 74 dBA Leq (car alarms) at 50 feet. Due to
the high level of traffic noise along streets surrounding the Project Site, normal daytime parking structure Leq
noise would not likely be audible due to the masking of noise by traffic on nearby roadways. The western portion
136
of the Santa Anita Racetrack property is currently utilized as surface parking; therefore, it can be assumed that the
horses boarded at the Racetrack property have become accustomed to typical parking lot noises such as car doors
slamming, car alarms and car horns, particularly if they have become conditioned to such noises over time.
Additionally, any sudden temporary increase in ambient noise levels would be screened by the carpenters shop
and the warehouse structures associated with the track, further reducing the potential impact. Therefore, this
impact would be considered less than significant. (ld.)
To ensure freshness and quality of the product, deliveries of fresh foods could occur throughout a 24-hour
period. Noise associated with deliveries would be limited to the idling of diesel engines and the sounds associated
with backup beepers. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-94-95.) However, these noises would be reduced at sensitive
receptors due to the distance of the loading docks from noise sensitive uses, as well as intervening structures
between the receptors and the loading docks. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-95.) Therefore, this impact would be
considered less than significant. (ld.)
The collection of refuse associated with the proposed Project would also create temporary increases in
ambient noise levels; however, as previously stated, the City's Municipal Code, Section 5120.9 regulates the
hours for commercial refuse to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Sunday through Saturday. Refuse collection
that occurs during these recognized hours of operation would be exempt from the City's noise standards. As such,
this impact is less than significant. (ld.)
AEA Modifications: The lack of new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the AEA Modifications is discussed in the preceding impact explanation in
these Findings. (Final EIR AEA p. 26-28.)
Cumulative Impacts: In order to achieve a substantial cumulative increase in construction noise levels,
more than one source emitting high levels of construction noise would need to be in close proximity to a noise
receptor. Construction activity of the Westfield Santa Expansion is located adjacent to the proposed Project, and
construction activity associated with this Project may overlap with construction activity for the proposed Project.
Thus, a cumulative increase in construction noise levels could result, however, Section 4261 and 4262 in Article
IV of the City Municipal Code contains an exemption for construction noise. Due to this exemption, the
cumulative temporary increases in ambient noise associated with construction activities would be considered less
than significant. The Project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable because noise impacts would
be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be exempt. The project's cumulative
impact would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-93.) As discussed in the new Draft EIR, no
operational cumulative impact would occur. The Project's contribution would be less than cumulatively
considerable and thus the cumulative impact is less than significant.
H. Public Services
Impact: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-10, Impact
4.11-1)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Jd.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 23, 29.) Compliance with the identified project requirements and
implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.11 I would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level and
ensure that the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.11-1 (MMRP at p. 3-92.)
137
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for fire protection
services, but it would not require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the
increased demand for service or maintain acceptable response times. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-11-12.) This is
considered a potentially significant impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-12.) However, compliance with the
identified project requirements and implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.11-1 would reduce this impact to
a less-than-significant level. (Id.) A less-than-significant fire protection and fire suppression impact for both
construction and operation of the proposed Project would result due to compliance with all prevailing laws and
regulations (as required by PR 4.IIA), the payment of all required fees as part of the development application (as
required by PR 4.11 B), the provision of additional fire protection personnel (as provided by mitigation measure
MM 4.11-1), as well as the fact that no physical impacts would occur. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-15.)
AEA Modifications: Due to a reduction of overall square footage under the AEA Modifications, and
because the same project requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented, which require the
payment of applicable fees and the generation of taxes as a result of the project, the City's average level of service
would be maintained. (Final EIR AEA at p.29.) Also, with respect to vehicular service or emergency access, none
of the changes with respect to the southward movement of West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, or
retail building would substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and presented in Figure 3-21 of the
new Draft EIR. (Id. at p.23) No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts would result with respect to public services, compared to conditions analyzed in the new
Draft EIR. Impacts under the AEA Modifications would be less than under the project conditions analyzed in the
new Draft EIR.
Cumulative Impacts: As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in
the demand for fire protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The provision of
adequate fire protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services
during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that fire protection services, response times, service
levels, etc., are responsive to changes in the City. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-32.) Funds collected in the form of
plan check fees, inspection fees, and permit fees (for new development) are deposited into the General Fund and
allocated to City services, as needed. In addition, the Project would provide approximately $2.3 million in tax
revenue per year to the General Fund that the City can use to fund any necessary additional fire personnel.
Staffing levels are evaluated by the AFD during the annual budgetary process and personnel are hired, as needed,
to ensure that adequate fire protection services are maintained. The cumulative impact, therefore, on fire services
in the City would be less than significant. The proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative impact would
not be cumulatively considerable because (1) the Project Site is anticipated to be served within the established
response times and distances for the AFD; (2) implementation of the proposed Project can be accommodated
within existing and future AFD staffing; (3) no new or physically altered facilities would need to be constructed
to accommodate the proposed Project, the construction of which could result in significant environmental
impacts; (4) adequate emergency access would be provided; and (5) existing city programs, practices, and
procedures, as well as project requirements, would continue to ensure the adequate provision of fire protection
services. For the reasons identified above, MM 4.11-1 and the available City revenue from the Project, the
contribution of the proposed Project to cumulative impacts on fire protection services would not be cumulatively
considerable. This is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
Impact: Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-18, Impact
4.11-2)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-18-19; Final EIR AEA at p.29.) Compliance with the identified project
requirements and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.11 2 and MM 4.13 4(a) would reduce this impact
138
to a less-than-significant level and ensure that the proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police
protection.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.11-2. (MMRP at p. 3-93.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would increase the demand for police protection
services, but it would not require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the
increased demand for service or maintain acceptable response times. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-18-19) This is
considered a potentially significant impact. However, compliance with the identified project requirements and
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.11-2 and MM 4. I 3-4(a) would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at p.29.)
Staffing Associated with Increased Crime Calls: Implementation of the proposed Project would increase
the demand for police serviccs by increasing the amount of commercial and retail development in the City, which
would constitute a potentially significant impact. On-site security would be provided and maintained by a private
security force. The intent of the private security system is to limit police response calls to the site. Security
services within the commercial entertainment zone and serving the Simulcast Center would be integrated with the
existing security force of the Racetrack. In order to help ensure the adequate provision of police protection
services within the Project Site, and as required by the Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, PR 4.61 would be
implemented to provide private security officers that would augment the City's police personnel. PR 4.61, which
is contained in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) of the new Draft EIR, states that the City and
Arcadia Police and Fire Departments shall review and approve a Master Security Plan. (Id.)
The Developer has prepared a Draft Master Security Plan (see new Draft EIR at App. L3), to ensure
adequate preparedness with fast and appropriate response to emergency and security situations. The Plan provides
a detailed description of all security operations, emergency response procedures, and staffing requirements for
operation of the proposed Project, incorporating the existing and anticipated future security efforts of the
Racetrack. The Plan also includes protocols for the interface of the Project's private security staff with Racetrack
security personnel and swom City police officers, and is intended to be consistent with the emergency response
procedures contained in the Racetrack's Emergency Action and Evacuation Plan. The Plan also includes
provisions for police officer workspace adjacent to or in connection with the planned security office. The Plan
establishes policies and procedures in order to create and maintain a reputable Public Safety Department at the
proposed Project, and to help coordinate the activities and procedures associated with the three adjacent security
groups: the Santa Anita Racetrack, Westfield Santa Anita, and the proposed Project. The Public Safety
Department would work with agencies within Santa Anita, including the Arcadia Police Department, as well as
state and federal law enforcement emergency response, regulatory, and administrative agencies. The Public Safety
Department consists of full and part time employees, including the resources of an outside contract security
company, and is responsible for the implementation of a comprehensive public safety and property protection
program in order to enforce established procedures. In addition, the employees at the proposed Project would be
required to participate in the administration of the Master Security Plan through training and rehearsing response
plans, critiquing the response to an event, and regularly reviewing and updating the Plan. (new Draft EIR at pp.
4.11-19-20.)
The APD believes, based on its experience with commercial development, that even with the provision of
private security personnel and a Master Security Plan, the proposed Project would still result in an increased
number of calls for service. In order to determine the increased call load associated with the proposed Project, the
APD used actual call data from the adjacent Westfield Santa Anita. Westfield Santa Anita, which consists of
approximately 1,140,000 sf of gross leasable space and resulted in 3,160 calls in 2005. The total square footage of
the commercial entertainment portion of the proposed Project (prior to the reductions under the AEA
Modifications) was 829,250 square feet. As previously mentioned, because the Simulcast Center would be placed
139
within the eXlstmg Grandstand structure, the APD believes that the eXlstmg Racetrack security forces and
protection methods would continue to protect the patrons of the Grandstand. The APD also believes that certain
elements of the proposed Project would not generate significant (if any) police calls, including the office uses
(25,000 square feet), the gourmet grocery (51,000 square feet), and the specialty food pavilion (16,000 square
feet). For purposes of comparison, these uses would not be comparable to a regional retail mall (Westfield Santa
Anita) with a Dave and Buster's tenant. Therefore, the APD considers 737,250 square feet of the proposed Project
(prior to the reductions under the AEA Modifications) to potentially generate increase police calls, which is
approximately 65 percent of the size of Westfield Santa Anita. Assuming a call load of3,160 calls associated with
Westfield Santa Anita, the proposed Project is anticipated to result in 2,054 calls. Of the calls, it is assumed that
540 crime reports would be taken, which is roughly equivalent to the number of crime reports taken at Westfield
Santa Anita (which is 839) as compared to the number of police calls (which is 3,160) (Penman 2006). (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.11-20-21.) These numbers are conservative in that the AEA Modifications has reduced the total square
footage of the commercial portion of the proposed Project 806,405 sf. See Final EIR AEA at pp. 1-2, 29.
The estimate of additional calls for service and the resulting number of crime reports that would result
may be conservative in that the existing security operations of the Racetrack and the proposed Master Security
Plan for the new development may actually decrease the number of calls to which the APD must respond, as
compared to the statistics provided in this document, depending upon the effectiveness of the security operations.
Although the presence of additional people creates the opportunity for a crime to occur, it is the APD's belief that
the Developer's history of commitment to public safety at other, similar projects would result in an amount of
calls that may not be any greater, and may be less, than any other similar commercial/retail developments. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.11-20-21.)
Using the APD methodology, which is assumed to be conservative for the reasons outlined immediately
above, the proposed Project would result in the need for three additional patrol officers over a 24-hour period and
one additional detective to handle the increased workload and maintain current service levels (Hinig 2005c), as
provided by MM 4.11-2. (Id. at pp. 4.11-21-22)
The City evaluates its police response times on an annual basis and will commit sufficient funding from
project-generated tax revenues to provide adequate staffing levels such that the City's police response times can
be maintained. A variety of approaches can be employed to ensure adequate staffing levels, including, but not
necessarily limited to, hiring (temporary and/or full-time), authorizing overtime and/or reassignments. Therefore,
increases in staffing are evaluated by the APD during its annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, or
overtime pay is funded for existing personnel, as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services are
provided. (ld.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would cause service levels to drop below current levels of
service; however, this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the addition of sworn and
support staff that includes the addition of three police officers and one detective or by the measures indicated
above if the APD determines not to add staff. The City has recently approved a staffing increase of two police
cadet positions; however, there are no other increases in staffing plans pending outside of the need for additional
personnel created by the Santa Anita Specific Plan or other development in the City. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-
25-26.) New facilities would not be required to accommodate the increased staff, as the APD is housed in a new
facility that was completed in 2003, has a lifespan of 45-50 years, and considers buildout of the City's General
Plan. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-26.) Therefore, the provision of additional police personnel would not require new
or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. (Id.)
By increasing staffing levels to cover the anticipated volume of service calls related to the Project, fully
implementing the license plate reading camera system (which is not required as a result of this project, but is
being pursued separately by the City), developing a Master Security Plan that provides private on-site security
(refer to Appendix L3 to the new Draft EIR), and communicating and collaborating with the police department,
the impacts associated with the proposed Project would be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. (Id.)
140
As required by PR 4.11 C, the Developer would pay all applicable plan check fees to the City for use
during the City's annual budgetary process and throughout the year, as necessary, to fund plan checks and
inspections. (PR 4.11 C, MMRP at p. 3-93.)
See discussion above under the previous Impact analysis which discusses emergency access routes and
the AFD. Adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles must be provided during construction activities in
compliance with the City's Municipal Code. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-22.) As required by PR 4.11 D, the entire
project site will be fenced. (Id.) Outside of construction hours (after 7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.), the site will
also be locked to prevent trespassing (and a potential increase in crime calls to the APD). Also, on-site security
will also be provided 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. As with the AFD, the APD has the authority and the
capability of to break locks and/or cut fence material to access the site in the event of an emergency.
Alternatively, depending on the emergency (and if time permits), the on-site security personnel could also provide
access to the site as required by PR 4.11 D. (MMRP at p. 3-93.)
Through the permitting process and the requirements of the City's Municipal Code, as well as fencing and
locking the Project Site during the evening hours (outside of construction hours) as required by PR 4.11 D,
construction-related impacts to the APD would be considered less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.11-23.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would also result in the issuance of new alcohol permits in the
City, which could result in an increased need for police protection services. However, existing regulations have
been established to evaluate the issuance of these permits to ensure that any potential impacts with respect to
crime or hazardous conditions are reduced or eliminated. The California Business and Professions Code,
Sections 23950-23962, lists the regulations that the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
follow when reviewing liquor permit applicaiions. In summary, the issuance of alcohol permits is discretionary,
and there is no cap on the number of licenses that may be issued in any jurisdiction. The ABC may deny a permit
for a number of reasons, including an undue concentration of alcohol permits as compared to other areas, or the
potential issuance of a permit in a high crime neighborhood. Further, the ABC seeks the input of the prevailing
jurisdiction before issuing or denying a permit. As of the September 2006, the City had 133 alcohol permits,
consisting of 90 on-sale pennits (e.g., restaurants and bars) and 43 off-sale permits (e.g., gas stations and liquor
stores). It is anticipated that the proposed Project would result in the issuance of approximately 20 additional
permits. (ld.)
The Master Security Plan for the proposed Project, which is required by PR 4.61, provides for the
implementation of a comprehensive plan of private security measures to reduce and/or quickly respond to crime
generated by the proposed Project, if any occurs. In addition, the Master Security Plan would be coordinated with
the existing and future efforts of the Racetrack and the City's sworn police personnel. There is no information
indicating that the issuance of additional alcohol permits would result in additional crime that could adversely
affect police protection services in the City. As previously mentioned, the issuance of alcohol permits is
discretionary and all actions consider the input of the prevailing jurisdiction. If necessary, and for any reason, the
ABC and/or the City could recommend denial of an alcohol permit in the interest of public welfare and safety.
Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. (!d.)
In summary, a less than significant police protection impact for both construction and operation of the
proposed Project would result due to the provision of a Master Security Plan (as required by PR 4.61), the
payment of all required annual fees intended to offset recurring costs (as required by PR 4.11 C), the provision of
additional police protection personnel as provided by MM 4.11-2, as well as the fact that no construction of
additional police facilities would be required. (Id. at pp. 4.11-23-24.)
Staffing Associated with Parking Enforcement: As also stated in Section 4.13 of the new Draft EIR, the
APD shall enforce any new parking restrictions that are implemented. As part of the City's annual budgetary
process, decisions are made about the level of enforcement officers required to service permit parking districts.
This impact would be less than significant.
141
AEA Modifications: Due to a reduction of overall square footage under the AEA Modifications, and
because the same project requirements and mitigation measures would be implemented as set forth in the new
Draft EIR, which require the payment of applicable fees and the generation of taxes as a result of the project, the
City's average level of service would be maintained and no new significant environmental impacts or
substantially more severe environmental impacts would result with respect to police services, compared to
conditions analyzed in the ncw Draft EIR. Impacts of the proposed Project with the AEA Modifications would be
less than those under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at p.29.)
Cumulative Impacts: As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in
the demand for police protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The provision of
adequate police protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services
during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that police protection services, response times,
service levels, etc., are responsive to changes in the City. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.11-32.) Funds collected in the
form of plan check fees, inspection fees, and permit fees (for new development) are deposited into the General
Fund and allocated to City scrvices, as needed. In addition, the Project would provide approximately $2.3 million
in tax revenue per year to the General Fund that the City can use to fund any necessary additional police
personnel. Staffing levels are evaluated by the APD during the annual budgetary process and personnel are hired,
as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services are maintained. The cumulative impact, therefore, on
police services in the City would be less than significant. The proposed Project's contribution to this cumulative
impact would not be cumulatively considerable because (I) the Project Site is anticipated to be served within the
established response times and distances for the APD; (2) implementation of the proposed Project can be
accommodated within existing and future APD staffing; (3) no new or physically altered facilities would need to
be constructed to accommodate the proposed Project, the construction of which could result in significant
environmental impacts; (4) adequate emergency access would be provided; and (5) existing city programs,
practices, and procedures, as well as project requirements, would continue to ensure the adequate provision of
police protection services. For the reasons identified above, MM 4.11-2 and the available City revenue from the
Project, the contribution of the proposed Project to cumulative impacts on police protection services would not be
cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a less-than-significant impact.
I. Traffic and Transportation
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio, or congestion at intersections)? (new Draft EIR at p.
4.13-69,106, Impacts 4.13-1 and 4.13-3)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; Final EIR AEA at pp. 29-30.) Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-I(b), MM 4.13-
I(d) through MM 4.13-I(p), and 4.13-3(a) through 4.13-3(c) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level and ensure that the proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number
of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio, or congestion at intersections).
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.13-I(b), MM 4.13-I(d), MM 4.13-1(e), MM 4.13-1(1), MM 4.13-I(g),
MM 4.I3-1(h), MM 4.13-I(i), MM 4.13-1U), MM 4.13-I(k), MM 4.13-1(1), MM 4.13-1(m), MM 4.13-I(n),
MM 4.13-1(0), MM 4.13-I(p), MM 4.13-3(a), MM 4.13-3(b), MM 4.13-3(c) (MMRP at pp. 3-94-98, 99-102.)
Explanation: Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular trips that would potentially
result in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service at intersections entirely within the City and
under the full control of the City. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-69.) This is considered a potentially significant
impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-I(b), MM 4.13-1(d) through MM 4.13-I(p)
would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.) Construction activities associated with the
proposed Project would temporarily impact the level of service on nearby roadways. This is considered a
142
potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13 3(a) through MM 4.13
3(c) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.)
The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts at a total of eighteen locations during
the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours, and a total of twelve locations during the Saturday peak hour. For both the
weekday and Saturday peak periods combined, a total of twenty of the forty-two intersections would be
significantly impacted by the Project. Six of these locations are located either outside the City, partially outside
the City, or have concurrent jurisdiction with Caltrans. These six intersections are discussed under a different
section. The following discussion is, thus, related to the intersections within, and under the full control of, the
City. The tables show which locations would be significantly impacted, and the magnitude of the Project-related
impact on the V/C ratio or delay. Note, in two locations the V/C ratio is projected to reduce slightly. This is due to
the estimated shifting ofsomc Racetrack access traffic to the east side gates. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.13-69-70.)
The project is expected to result in a potentially significant traffic impact at twenty intersection locations
as follows (of these six are analyzed under Impact 4.13-2):
. Baldwin Avenue and 1-210 Eastbound Ramps (p.m. and Saturday) (partially controlled by Caltrans)
. Baldwin A venue and Gate 8 (Saturday)
. Rosemead Boulevard CMP arterial monitoring station at Huntington Drive (p.m. and Saturday) (County
of Los Angeles)
. Baldwin A venue and Duarte Road (p.m. and Saturday)
. Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive (p.m. and Saturday)
. Holly Avenue-Gate 3 and Huntington Drive (p.m. and Saturday)
. West Colorado Place and Huntington Drive (p.m.)
. Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive (a.m. and Saturday)
. Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive (a.m., p.m., and Saturday)
. Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street (p.m.)
. Second Avenue and Huntington Drive (p.m.)
. Centennial Way and Huntington Drive West (a.m., p.m., and Saturday)
. Centennial Way and Huntington Drive East (p.m.)
. Sunset Boulevard and Huntington Drive (p.m.)
. Santa Anita A venue and Duarte Road (p.m. and Saturday)
. Foothill Boulevard and Santa Anita Avenue (p.m.)
. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue (p.m.) (partially controlled by the County of Los Angeles)
. Duarte Road at Roscmead Boulevard (p.m. and Saturday) (County of Los Angeles)
· Huntington Drive and San Gabriel Boulevard (Saturday) (County of Los Angeles and San Marino)
. Huntington Drive and Sierra Madre Boulevard (p.m.) (San Marino)
To restore significantly impacted intersections to acceptable levels of service, two categories of mitigation
measures are recommended:
. Category A-Adaptive Traffic Control/Intelligent Transportation Systems
. Category B-Physical Intersection/Roadway Improvements. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-74.)
Because the potential project related impacts would occur over a relatively large area, and because the site
is served by three freeway intcrchanges (those on Baldwin Avenue, Santa Anita Avenue, and Huntington Drive),
part of the mitigation program would assist in implementing a subregional transportation improvement program
that addresses both project impacts and area-wide needs. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-75.) Recognizing that
increasing travel demand has caused the transportation system to reach the limits of its capacity, and that
intersection and roadway improvements are becoming increasingly infeasible, more and more jurisdictions are
pursuing other ways to ease this strain. These alternative approaches include implementation of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) through the application of modern information technology and communications.
Thus, an important component of the proposed Project mitigation program utilizes selected ITS measures to
143
improve traffic flow along arterials in the study area, and to improve freeway ramp access and connectivity with
the surface street system (Category A improvements). In addition, more conventional capacity-enhancing
mitigation measures, such as adding lanes at intersections via restriping or widening, are also proposed where
they are deemed to be feasible (Category B improvements). (See Table 4.13-12 and. Figure 4.13-16 of the new
Draft EIR.) The goal of the improvements and mitigation measures is to achieve LOS D, or if LOS D cannot
reasonably be achieved, to reduce the volume-to-capacity ratio to below "without project" levels, thereby fully
mitigating the Project impact. The mitigation measures are all technically feasible. However, the implementation
of six of these mitigation measures must be permitted by a jurisdiction other than the City. (Id.)
Mitigation Categorv A-Area-Wide ATCS/ITS Measures: Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) and
ITS Development Plan
The Project would be required to fund a fair-share of the design and construction of a state-of-the-art
traffic signal system, such as an ATCS, along the following arterial routes: Baldwin Avenue; Santa Anita Avenue;
Foothill Boulevard; Colorado Street/Place; Huntington Drive; Duarte Road. (ld.) The Developer is responsible for
performing and paying for the project-specific traffic mitigation measure improvements. The Developer is also
required to pay the City's Transportation Impact Fee for this Project. However, there is an overlap between these
two that must be taken into consideration. The City's Transportation Impact Fee Program is based on the future
improvement needs at 20 key arterial intersections within the City. All development in the City of Arcadia is
required to pay this fee. The preliminary Transportation Impact Fee for this Project, estimated based on the
square footage and the uses proposed in the Project, is roughly $5.5 million. The current estimate for all of the
developer's traffic improvements at the 20 intersections impacted by the Project is approximately $10 million.
The A TCS would include interconnect via new conduit and fiber optic cables, traffic signal detection
systems, surveillance cameras, message signs, and/or other means that connect the arterial traffic signal system
with the City Hall Traffic Management Center and other potential connections with adjacent jurisdictions. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-75.) Such connectivity with the regional transportation system would allow motorists leaving
the freeway and motorists getting on the freeway or entering the City at other locations to be better informed more
quickly as to which surface streets and on-ramps provide the best alternatives for accessing their destinations.
(new Draft EIR at pp. 4.13-75, 81.) This would result in better distribution of traffic loadings and more efficient
use of available street and ramp capacity. Computerized traffic signal systems, such as the system that would be
implemented in Arcadia, usually involve the following elements: (1) coordinating groups of signals by using
inter-connection, (2) systematically optimizing the signal timing parameters of pretimed signals or the interval
settings of traffic actuated signals, and (3) incorporating advanced traffic control functions by using master
computers. This latter element includes increased timing plan flexibility, dynamic traffic responsive control
features, and on-line traffic performance monitoring and control system components operation. The Arcadia
system would include other elements such as video vehicle detection and monitoring. (Id.)
The capacity of the signalized intersections along the arterials being served by the A TCS and supportive
ITS measures is assumed to improve by up to 7 percent, which is consistent with the improved capacity
experienced in other jurisdictions with A TCS/ITS programs, such as the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, and
Glendale. Signalized intersections in the study area not directly along the A TCS/ITS routes would also benefit
and experience improved trallic flow overall due to ITS technology informing motorists of traffic conditions in
the area. Motorists can use this information to seek better routes and thereby better balance traffic demand with
capacity. (Id.)
Varying types and levels of ITS technology are proposed for different intersections in the City. For those
intersections where only fiber optic interconnect and conduit is proposed (with no other ITS elements), a
5 percent benefit/credit is applied for calculation of mitigation credit (in terms of operational and capacity.
improvement gained). For locations where interconnect plus other measures, such as video detection, c1osed-
circuit television (CCTV), or traffic monitoring stations are proposed, a 7 percent benefit/credit is applied. The
7 percent credit value has been applied by various jurisdictions throughout southern California for many years in
environmental studies, including in the City of Los Angeles. In fact, the City of Los Angeles is now applying a
144
10 percent credit for adaptive traffic control systems; however, to be conservative, only 5 and 7 percent
benefits/credits are applied to ensure that mitigation credits conservatively represent expected benefits. (Id.)
An initial phase of the A TCS/ITS project, also called the City's ITS Deployment Plan, Phase I, is
currently under design and would be implemented using currently available funding sources. A subsequent phase
would provide additional system elements, including some elements at intersections not covered by the first
phase, as well as some additional elements at intersections that are included in the first phase but would be further
enhanced in the second phase of the ATCS/ITS project. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.13-81.) Also, additional system-
wide elements (not only intersection specific but part of the overall system) would be included in subsequent
phases. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-94.) For clarity and accuracy, the currently funded phase is separated from the
next phase in the Project mitigation summary. The current phase is assumed to be in place as a pre-project
condition, while the future phase is assumed to be a project mitigation measure. (Id.)
To reduce identified impacts, MM 4.13-1 (a)-(t) shall be implemented, which will include a fair share of
the costs of the design and implementation on ATCS along Baldwin Avenue, Santa Anita Avenue, Foothill
Boulevard, Colorado Street/Place, Huntington Drive, and Duarte Road. The Developer shall design and
implement the A'fCS measures identified in Table 4.13-12 (Recommended Mitigation Measures) of the new Draft
EIR under the heading of Category A Developer responsibility. The fair share contribution for the proposed
Project shall be used to fund the design and construction of Intelligent Transportation Systems Elements including
but not necessarily limited to interconnection conduit and fiber optic lines, traffic detectors, CCTV surveillance
cameras, traffic monitoring stations, communications hubs, message signs and other means of connecting the
regional arterial transfer system with adjacent freeway on- and off-ramps, meters, and other elements that are part
of the City's Intelligent Transportation Systems Development Plan consistent with the Category A improvements
designated in Table 4.13-12. (Id. at p. 4.13-82.)
The City prepared a Citywide Master Plan and Fair Share Transportation Impact Fee Study. The City
adopted a "fair share" traffic mitigation fee program to fund future roadway and intersection improvements, and
this Transportation Impact Fee Program report was approved by the City Council on December 6, 2005. This and
other future projects would be subject to the provisions of the City's Transportation Impact Fee Program. (ld.)
Mitigation Categorv B-Phvsical Intersection Improvements: This category of mitigation includes
increasing intersection capacity via restriping, installation of new traffic signals or improving the existing traffic
signal, or adding capacity via widening and the addition of through or turning lanes. This last type of mitigation
measure is recommended at several intersections. (Id.)
To reduce identified impacts, mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 (a)-(t) shall be implemented. With
implementation of MM 4. I 3-1 (a)-(t) (with mitigation measures 4.13-I(a), (c), (q) - (t) analyzed under Impact
4.13-2 since they are located outside the full control of the City of Arcadia), the recommended physical
improvements would be implemented, and, in combination with the ATCS/ITS systems improvements, all of the
significantly impacted intersection locations within and under the full control of the City would be mitigated
below a level of significance (defined as improving the intersection to LOS D or better, or, if at LOS E or F,
reducing the Project impact to below 0.02 change in V/C ratio). (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-85-86.) Table 4.13-13
of the new Draft EIR summarizes intersection operations after implementation of MM 4. I 3-1 (a)-(t). Impacts
would, therefore, be less than significant. (Id.)
Construction Stagin!! and Parking: The construction parking plan proposed by the Developer
demonstrates that there will be no significant impacts regarding parking during construction of the Project. (Letter
from Paul Kurzawa to Jason Kruckeberg re the project construction parking plan dated April 16, 2007.)
Construction activities would occur throughout the 85 acre CE zone, at Gate 5 and off site for traffic and
infrastructure improvements, but primarily in the approximately 45 acre area including and inside the proposed
ring road, where most new buildings are planned. Construction workers and equipment would be parked and
staged within the approximate 45-acre (primary) construction site, on future building pads and retail surface
parking areas, in the area of the water feature before it is complete or in the West Parking Deck once it is
sufficiently completed to allow access. Grading and improvements to Parking Area C would occur during the
145
non-racing season and after the West Deck is completed, so that it is available for track parking at other times.
Most of the Gate 8 realignment work and installation of infrastructure in this area could occur while leaving the
existing access road in operation, or be completed during non-racing days. The Gate 8 access road could be used
for project access by construction workers, track executives and horse owners (who typically use it now), during
the majority of the construction period. Other non-construction traffic and Racetrack guests would be discouraged
from choosing this access road by the use of temporary signs, barricades, and construction flagmen, except for
short periods when temporary track access may be required during construction of improvements to other access
points. The west end of the Gate 8 access, including the easement area, would always be kept open for access to
the mall. (Id.)
The following analysis includes, but is not limited to, site preparation (demolition and earth work),
construction of abovefbelow grade structures, retail construction, commercial construction, hardscape
construction, and landscaping. Construction of the Project is estimated to take 18 months to complete, with the
first phase of construction (site preparation) occurring during months one through three, the second phase of
construction (building construction) during months three through 18, and the third phase of construction
(hardscape construction and landscaping) during months 15 through 18. During construction, there would be
temporary impacts to the surrounding street network as a result of worker and truck trips traveling to and from the
Project Site. The total number of construction related trips would vary according to the construction month and
phase of the Project. The following analysis outlines the worst-case scenarios, with respect to construction related
traffic impacts, during the IS-month construction period. All construction activity estimates were based on the
June 2006, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Park Construction Equipment and Personnel Estimate spreadsheet,
which is based on the gross buildable area of the proposed Project site. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-86.)
Peak Phase Construction Worker Trips: The total number of construction workers on the Project Site
peaks at 4,250 worker-days per week during the final five months of construction. Although construction would
occur in phases, the construction-worker peak represents the worst-case scenario during the 18-month
construction period. Construction on the site would occur 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, with two worker shifts
from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 11 :00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. With 4,250 worker-days during the peak week,
approximately 708 workers would be on the site each work day, and roughly 354 workers would be on the Project
Site during each shift. Due to the shift split, construction-worker trips are not expected to impact the surrounding
street network during the a.m. and p.m. peak period from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., respectively.
The first shift of workers would arrive at the construction site prior to the a.m. peak period (shift starts at
7:00 a.m.) and leave before the p.m. peak period (shift ends at 3:00 p.m.), and the second shift of workers would
arrive at the construction site after the a.m. peak period (shift starts at 11 :00 a.m.) and leave after the p.m. peak
period (shift ends at 7:00 p.m.). (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-87.)
During the peak weelc of construction workers, up to sixty-five truck trips are also projected to visit the
construction site. With a six-day work week, eleven trucks are projected to visit the site each day, at an average of
up to one truck per hour. This indicates that during the peak worker month, approximately two truck trips are
projected to enter/exit the site during the a.m. peak period and two truck trips are projected to enter/exit the site
during the p.m. peak period. When compared to the final trip generation of the Project, which is projected to
generate 715 a.m. peak period trips, 2,890 p.m. peak-period trips and 30,226 trips daily, the eleven truck trips per
day and two truck trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods related to construction traffic is nominal. (Id.)
Peak Phase Truck Trim;: The total number of truck trips is projected to peak during the third month of
construction with 232 truck trips per week. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-87.) With a six-day work week, 39 truck
trips are projected to enter/exit the site each day, at an average of two trucks per hour. This indicates that when the
total number of truck trips peak during the 18 month construction period, approximately four truck trips are
projected to enter/exit the site during the a.m. peak period and four truck trips are projected to enter/exit the site
during the p.m. peak period. As discussed above, when compared to the final trip generation of the Project, four
truck trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods are negligible. The City has an adopted Truck Route System.
The haul routes are limited to those identified here. (Id)
146
Implementation of MM 4.13-3(a) through MM 4. 13-3(c) would reduce construction-related traffic
impacts to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-88.)
AEA Modifications: The AEA projects that, based on the reduction of square footage under the AEA
Modifications, daily retail trips would be reduced by approximately 0.9 percent, while the reduction in screens
and seats under the AEA Modifications would reduce the daily cinema/theater trips by approximately 0.8 percent,
representing a total reduction of less than two percent in daily trips. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 29-30.) While the
West Parking Garage would increase in height from three stories to four stories, the same number of parking
spaces and the same square footage would be provided (and, a parking garage does not generate project-related
traffic). The relocated Saddling Barn would not affect the number of vehicle trips, as operation of the Saddling
Barn would not generate individual trips and it is considered part of the baseline condition because it is an
existing use. The AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts
associated with operational traffic, including neighborhood intrusion impacts. Impacts would be less than the
project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square footage and the
corresponding reduction in project-related vehicle trips. (ld.)
Construction of the potential project modifications would still occur during a single 18-month phase
starting in the third quarter of 2007 and completing in 2009. While there would be a somewhat different mix in
construction equipment and techniques due to relocation of the Saddling Barn (as opposed to construction of a
new Saddling Barn), this would not result in a substantial change to construction-related truck trips or worker
trips from that evaluated on pages 4.13-85 through 4.13-88 of the new Draft EIR. However, fewer truck trips
would be required, since demolition activities would be reduced by relocation of the wings of the Saddling Barn,
rather than demolition. Construction staging and parking would be the same as that evaluated in the new Draft
EIR. Impacts would be similar to the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
With respect to vehicular circulation and access (including emergency access), none of the changes with
respect to the southward movement of West Parking Garage, the cinema/theater building, or retail building would
substantially alter or interfere with the routes established and presented in Figure 3-21 of the new Draft EIR or
result in a hazardous design feature. Also, while pedestrian circulation would be slightly modified in that the
entrance to the cinema/theater building would be from an open pedestrian area located on the covered portion of
the Arcadia Wash, this would not be a hazardous design feature. Additionally, the proposed project would be
required to meet all applicable local and State regulatory standards for adequate emergency access. The potential
project modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
vehicular or pedestrian access and circulation. Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions
analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts: Future (2009) conditions, with and without the Project, include other local
development projects that could affect traffic volumes within the study area for the Project Site. (new Draft EIR at
p. 4.13-106.) Therefore, the project specific traffic analysis considers trips generated by the proposed Project, as
well as cumulative projects, in its development of future baseline conditions. The proposed Project, in conjunction
with the identified cumulative projects, would have potentially significant impacts at a total of 20 intersections
without the incorporation of mitigation measures. However, with the incorporation of appropriate mitigation
measures, which include physical intersection improvements as well as A TCS/ITS improvements, project specific
impacts to 14 of the 20 intersections located within the City and under the full control of the City would be
mitigated below a level of significance. (ld.) Since the project specific analysis includes the cumulative projects
identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project site, the mitigation measures identified would also apply to the
potential cumulative impacts of the proposed Project. Therefore, because the Project's contribution to substantial
increases in traffic in relation to the existing traffic local street system would not be cumulatively considerable,
this cumulative project impact would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.13-106-107.)
During construction, the proposed Project would temporarily increase traffic volumes in the surrounding
street network. As mentioned previously, the total number of construction-related trips would vary depending on
the type and intensity of construction work being performed. Several of the cumulative projects shown in
147
Figure 4.13-9 (Locations of Cumulative Projects) of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita
Expansion and Methodist Hospital Expansion, may conduct construction work simultaneously with the proposed
Project's construction, thereby resulting in varying increases in traffic volumes and a significant cumulative
impact would result. It is assumed that the nearby cumulative projects would include measures to reduce potential
temporary impacts to the local area street network as determined by the City. The proposed Project would
incorporate mitigation measures MM 4. 13-3(a) through MM 4.13-3(c) that would ensure that the flow of traffic in
the surrounding streets is not significantly impacted as a result of construction activities, including temporary lane
closures. Therefore, since the Project's contribution to construction-related traffic impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable, this cumulative project impact would be less than significant. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively result in inadequate parking capacity? In specific,
would operation of the proposed Project result in inadequate parking capacity during the Santa Anita season?
Also, would operation of the proposed project result in impacts related to neighborhood parking intrusion in the
adjacent residential areas to the Specific Plan Area? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-198, 110, Impacts 4.13-10 and
4.13-12)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than
significant. (Id.; Final EIR at p. 30.) Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.1310 and mitigation measures
MM 4.13 4(a), MM 4.13 4(b), and PR 4.13A would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level and
ensure that the proposed Project would not result in inadequate parking capacity.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.13-10; see MM 4.13-4(a), MM 4.l3-4(b). (MMRP at pp. 3-106-108.)
Explanation: Without the AEA Modifications, the new commercial portion of the Project would require 3,820
parking spaces, using the City parking code and Specific Plan requirement of 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sf of modified
floor area. The size of the commercial area is assumed to be 804,250 sf without the AEA Modifications. The
office component of 25,000 sf would require four spaces per 1,000 sf or a total of 100 spaces. Based on the
Specific Plan guidelines, the total parking supply required for the Project without the AEA Modifications is 3,920
spaces (3,820 for commercial plus 100 for offices). The project description in the new Draft EIR indicates that
two parking decks and two surface parking lots would provide a total of 3,920 new spaces, which would meet the
Specific Plan requirements. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.13-98-99.)
Operation of the proposed Project could result in inadequate parking capacity during the Santa Anita
season. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure
MM 4.13-10 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.) Operation of the proposed Project
could result in impacts related to neighborhood parking intrusion in the adjacent residential areas to the Specific
Plan Area. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measures
MM 4.13 4(a), MM 4.13 4(b), and PR 4.13A would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Data from the 2005/06 Santa Anita season were analyzed to determine how the Racetrack parking system
would be affected by the proposed Project. All parking demand calculations included track employee parking as
well, which is estimated to be 500 vehicles on weekdays during live racing season, 1,500 vehicles on weekends
during live racing season, and 300 vehicles during other times of the year. Employee parking is assumed to occur
in the future primarily in the north lot. (Id.)
In relation to the proposed parking supply with project the following findings are made:
. Parking Capacity of Lots A, B, Valet, West Deck and C will be 13,622 spaces. Using 2005/2006 data,
that capacity would be exceeded four days, and would require off-site parking;
. Parking Capacity of Lots A, B, Valet, and West Deck (excluding Lot C) will be 11,262. Using 2005/06
data, that capacity would be exceeded five days. (Id.)
On four days in the Santa Anita season, off-site parking would be needed. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-115.)
Therefore, the data indicate that provisions for overflow parking (parking outside of the Project boundaries)
148
would be necessary for four race days in the season. Based on the 2005/06 data, the parking supply would be
sufficient 82 out of 86 days (note the 2005/2006 season had two more racing days. Based on the 2005/06 data,
Lots A, B, and Valet would be sufficient 81 out of86 days (94% of the days). (Id.)
Potential locations for additional parking outside of the Project boundaries on the four peak event days in
the Santa Anita season may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following (all locations subject to
coordination with, and approval of, land owners and parking operators): Arcadia High School; Medical Center
Building; Arboretum of LA County; LA County Public Works; Arcadia County Park and Santa Anita Golf
Course; Santa Anita Church/Barnhart School; Parsons Corporation; Arcadia City Hall; Arcadia Chamber of
Commerce; Arcadia Community Center; Gold Line lot at the 1-210 Freeway (Sierra Madre Station). (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.13-100.)
Implementation of the parking plan, as provided by mitigation measure MM 4.13-10, would reduce any
identified impacts to a less-than-significant level. (Id.)
ITW/Simulcast: The average attendance for the existing ITW functions during the off-season at the
Racetrack is 2,200 patrons, which translates to approximately 2,000 patron parking spaces (auto occupancy for
ITW is assumed to be lower than race day auto occupancy because more individuals come alone to the ITW,
which results in more cars per level of attendance). Thus, the average parking demand, including employees,
during the off-season is cUlTently 2,300 spaces. The net addition of restaurant square footage in the new
ITW/Simulcast would add some parking demand (approximately 320 spaces on non-race days, and 168 spaces on
race days). This amount of added parking demand would not change the conclusions of the report regarding the
occupancy of the various parking areas during the Santa Anita Season nor change the conclusions rcgarding the
number of days that parking outside of the Project boundaries would be needed. The totallTW/Simulcast demand
is greatest off season and would use only about 60 percent of the capacity of Area AN. Hence, Area NY would
serve the current ITW and expected future day-to-day ITW /Simulcast parking demand for the track during the
non-racing season. Consequently, the impact of the proposed ITW/Simulcast on non-race day parking capacity
would be less than significant. (Id.)
Adequate parking would be provided at the Specific Plan Area, as required by the City Municipal Code as
well as the Specific Plan Guidelines. Adequate parking would be available during the Santa Anita Season, with
implementation of MM 4.13-10. Adequate parking would also be available during the off-season at the Racetrack
(ITW/Simulcast). Any potential impacts relating to parking capacity would, therefore, be reduced to a less-than-
significant level. (Id.) As required by MM 4.13-4(a), the neighborhood traffic control program will include
outreach to and participation by all affected residents, with affected residents voting on the program elements and
with a required 60 percent approval. The approved program then would be submitted to the City's Traffic
Advisory Committee and then to the City Council for final approval. (MMRP, page 3-88.) With the passage of
Measure P, neighborhood parking impacts are expected to be even less than the impacts analyzed in the new Draft
EIR with the above-referenced mitigation measures.
The Arcadia Police Department shall enforce any new parking restrictions that are implemcnted. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-102.) As part of the City's annual budgetary process, decisions would be made about the
level of enforcement officers required to service the permit parking districts. This impact would be less than
significant.
AEA Modifications: Operation of the Project with the modifications suggested in the City Staff Report
would not result in inadequate parking capacity. The modified West Parking Garage would increase in height to
51.6 feet (at the top of the parapet wall) with architectural features extending to 65.6 feet in height; however, the
square footage of the garage would not change and the structure would maintain a capacity of 2,850 cars. The
retail building and the cinema could require fewer parking spaces due to the decrease in size. The relocated
Saddling Barn would not generate individual trips, nor would it require additional parking spaces for that use
alone. As such, the parking impacts evaluated on pages 4.13-98 through 4.13-102 of the new Draft EIR would be
less with the AEA Modifications. The AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe
environmental impacts associated with the provision of adequate parking. Impacts would be less than for the
149
project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square
footage. (Final EIR AEA at p. 30.)
Cumulative Impacts: The data indicate that provisions for overflow parking (parking outside of the
Project boundaries) would be necessary for four race days in the season. Several of the cumulative projects shown
in Figure 4.13-9 (Locations of Cumulative Projects) of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita
Expansion and Methodist Hospital Expansion, may contribute to parking demand in the Project vicinity and
onsite, thereby resulting in additional overflow parking demand and a significant cumulative impact could result.
Mitigation measure MM 4.13-10 would be implemented and would resolve any potentially significant impacts
relating to project-related parking capacity. Additionally, the proposed Project would result in less-than-
significant impacts related to parking capacity during the Oak Tree Season. This project-related contribution to
parking capacity would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative project contribution would be less than
significant. (new Draft ElR at pp. 4.13-110-111.)
J. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively require or result in the construction of new or
expanded wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-34, 51,53, Impact 4.14-7)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or substantially
lessen the environmental effect identified in the Final EIR in order to ensure this impact is less than significant.
To further reduce the less-than-significant impact, with mitigation measure 4.14-1, the proposed Project would
not require or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (new Draft EIR at pp.
4.14-34, 51, 53; Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at p. 2-31.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.14-1. (MMRP at p. 3-117.)
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project would require new sewer connections, but would not
require or result in the construction of new or expanded wastewater conveyance systems that could cause
significant environmental effects. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-34.) Compliance with the identified project
requirements and implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.14-1 would ensure that this impact would remain
less than significant. (Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at p. 2-67.)
Sewer Convevance Infrastructure: Wastewater flow calculations in the new Draft EIR assume that
development within the Specific Plan area would include 829,250 sf of commercial, office, and retail uses, and a
97,977 sf Simulcast Center (of which only 16,800 sf would be net new space), for a project total of 846,050 sf for
purposes of the sewer analysis. Due to rounding, and to provide a conservative analysis, the actual square footage
presented in Table 4.14-11 (Projected Wastewater Generation, Approach I) of the new Draft EIR is 847,000 sf. In
addition to the retail, commercial, and office components of the proposed Project, the wastewater analysis also
includes the 3.5-acre water feature. The water demand for this component of the Project is estimated to be 24
AFY, and wastewater flows from the water feature are estimated to be 25 percent of the water demand. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.14-1; see discussion below on effect of AEA Modifications on wastewater flow.)
Currently for this Project and others being planned along with normal growth in the area, the Santa Anita
trunk line will not have sutncient capacity to meet peak sewage flows. The Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts staff anticipates that design and construction of sewer relief lines along the trunk will take approximately
two to three years. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts staff has indicated that the new relief trunk
sewer line on the Santa Anita trunk would be necessary even without the addition of the effects from the proposed
Project, so while there are foreseeable capacity issues, they are being addressed by the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District. The City will not issue a certificate of occupancy without adequate sewer capacity. Therefore
this impact is less than significant.
150
AEA Modifications. No new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts would result with respect to wastewater generation as a result of the AEA Modifications;
Impacts would be less than under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of
overall square footage under the AEA Modifications. (Final EIR AEA at p. 31.)
Cumulative Impacts: Any person connecting to the CSDLAC sewer system shall pay connection fees in
accordance with the CSDLAC Wastewater Ordinance and Connection Fee Ordinance (1981, amended 1997). The
Connection Fee Program requires all new users of the Districts' sewerage system, as well as existing users that
significantly increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge, to pay their fair share of the costs for
providing additional conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities. The Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit
Program allows for the regulation of industrial wastewater dischargers to protect the public health, environment,
and the public sewerage system. The Surcharge Program requires all industrial companies discharging to the
Districts' sewerage system to pay their fair share of the wastewater treatment and disposal costs. The Connection
Fee Program requires all new users of the Districts' sewerage system, as well as existing users that significantly
increase the quantity or strength of their wastewater discharge, to pay their fair share of the costs for providing
additional conveyance, treatment, and disposal facilities. These programs ensure that all users pay their fair share
for any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities and would
ensure that the cumulative impact is less than significant. Similarly, with the payment of applicable fees, the
Project's contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable, and a less-than-significant impact
would result. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-53-54.)
SECTION IV
FINDINGS OF SIGNtFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "it is the policy of the state that public agencies should
not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which
would substantially lessen thc significant environmental effects of such projects. The Legislature further finds and
declares that in the event specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives
or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects
thereof." Section 15364 of the CEQA Guidelines defines "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social,
and technological factors."
The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of feasible measures outlined in the Final
EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level. Despite these significant and
unavoidable impacts, the City nevertheless approves the Project because of the benefits described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations included herein.
A. Aesthetics
Impact: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? In specific, would implementation
of the proposed Project result in a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas represented by Viewpoints A and
B? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-20-22, Impact 4.1-1).
Finding: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas
represented by Viewsheds A and B. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Because no feasible
mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-20-22; Final EIR AEA at pp. 7-9.)
Mitigation Measures: It was determined that no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist to reduce this
impact. (Id.)
Explanation: The City's General Plan, Community Development Chapter, designates three key view corridors,
indicated as Viewsheds A, B, and D in the following analysis. In addition, the Centennial Way corridor
(Viewshed C) is considered in this analysis due to its prominence as a major entry point to the Specific Plan Area.
151
(new Draft EIR at pp. 20-22.) The following discussion describes and analyzes the viewsheds from two different
locations along Huntington Drive, Viewsheds A and B, as the proposed Project would have a significant impact
on these focal views. (Id.) Viewsheds C and D are discussed in separate findings in Section II.A hereof, as the
proposed Project would cause different effects to these viewsheds.
Views from the South. Looking North IViewshed A): Foreground views of the Specific Plan Area from
residential and commercial uses to the south, as well as from vehicles traveling along West Huntington Drive,
would be altered, but not adversely. This area consists of the existing, paved, surface parking that would not be
developed with any structures under the proposed Project. Rather; this foreground area would include a semi-
permeable surface capable of supporting parked cars, such as turf or turf block. (Id.)
Along Huntington Drive, from Centennial Way to the bridge entrance at Westfield Santa Anita, the
existing, ivy-covered chain-link fence would be replaced by a 10-foot-wide landscaped buffer (not including a
new 5-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way) that would begin at the property line and extend into the CE
zone. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.1-25.) The landscaped buffer and sidewalk would meander to avoid existing, mature
trees along Huntington Drive, and would also include a decorative fence to replace the existing chain-link fence.
The new fence would be about 40 inches tall and would match, stylistically, the existing fences along the walking
path and Paddock. The fence would be integrated into the planned landscaped strip, and new landscaping would
be low scale to preserve unobstructed views of the proposed development, the Grandstand, and the mountain
back-drop. Currently, the property line occurs approximately 10 feet from the roadway curb, which would result
in a total of approximately 20 feet of landscaping and sidewalk areas. (Id.)
Middle-ground views of the Santa Anita Grandstand would be substantially altered with the proposed
development. Specifically, in the western half of this view, the view of the eastern portion of Westfield Santa
Anita and the westernmost portion of the Grandstand would not be altered, but the majority of views of the
Grandstand would be obscured by the proposed development and associated landscaping, although views of the
Grandstand roofline and limited views of the westernmost portions of the Grandstand would still be available
from this location. Although the proposed structures would be limited to 55 feet, with unoccupied architectural
features reaching 67 feet and flagpoles reaching 85 feet (the height of the Grandstand), the proposed structures in
the CE zone would be closer to Huntington Drive (and the majority of people experiencing this view);
consequently, as a result of the difference in perspective, some architectural elements of the proposed
development, such as spires or cupolas which are integral elements of the proposed Project, would be visible from
the middle-ground view. As proposed, the proposed Project includes a total of three flagpoles, the tallest of which
would be 85 feet, with one at 80 feet and another at 70 feel. The purpose of the taller architectural elements (e.g.,
the flagpoles) is to add to the architectural authenticity and integrity of the design, incorporating elements that
currently exist at the top of the Grandstand. (Id.)
As previously stated, the majority of the structures of the proposed development would be about 55 feet,
which is about 30 feet shorter than the roofline of the Grandstand. The alignment of the proposed pedestrian street
would provide some space to allow for limited views of the Grandstand, east of the main southern entrance;
however, the proposed structure on the north side of the water feature, as well as the proposed clusters of shade
and specimen trees along the perimeter of the water feature, would generally obscure this view. (ld.)
Existing background views of the mountains would remain, and would not be obscured by the proposed
Project. (Id.) However, because the proposed development would obscure or eliminate the majority of existing
focal views of the Grandstand from this location along Huntington Drive, the impact to this view would be
significant and unavoidable. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-25-26.) No feasible mitigation measures are available.
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.1-26.)
Views from the South. Looking North IViewshed B): This area would continue as an access point from
Huntington Drive to the interior of the site and would not be developed with occupied structures under the
proposed Project. However, as with Viewshed A, middle-ground views of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand would
be substantially altered. From Viewshed A to Viewshed B, only portions of the roof of the Grandstand would be
clearly visible within the proposed development. Intermittent eastern views of the Grandstand would be available
152
from this vantage point, between proposed new structures and landscaping. The proposed commercial structures
located north and south of the water feature would obscure the middle view of the base of the Grandstand. (Id. at
pp.22-23.)
In addition, particular architectural elements within the new development, such as spires or cupolas which
are integral elements of the proposed Project, would appear to exceed the height of the existing Grandstand and
would create competing views against the palm-tree-lined Santa Anita Park entrance at Holly A venue. Although
the majority of the structures associated with the proposed Project would be 55 feet tall, with architectural
features reaching approximately 67 feet tall (18 feet shorter than the Grandstand), they would appear only slightly
shorter than the Grandstand, due to the closer proximity of the proposed structures to the origin of the Viewshed
(i.e., along Huntington Drive). Also, one of the three flagpoles could reach 85 feet in height and could further
obstruct the limited remaining views of the Grandstand. As a result, although the majority of the existing
background views of the upper portions and ridgelines of the mountains and the foothills would remain, the
majority of the existing focal views of the Grandstand and a portion of the views of the mountains would be
obscured by the proposed development from this location at Huntington Drive and Holly A venue, and the impact
to this view would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: Under the AEA Modifications, the West Parking Garage would increase in height to
51.6 feet (at the top of the parapet wall) with elevator towers extending to 65.6 feet. However, the West Parking
Garage would be located on a smaller building footprint as a result of the northern portion of the parking garage
moving to the south to accommodate the relocated cinema/theater building. The southern limit of the parking
structure would remain in the location examined in the new Draft EIR. Even with an increase in height, the West
Parking Garage would still be shorter than the roofline of the Grandstand when measuring to the top of the
building parapets, with the Grandstand extending to 85 feet in height. The elevator towers associated with the
West Parking Garage would reach a height of 65.6 feet, approximately 19 feet shorter than the roofline of the
Grandstand. However, since the West Parking Garage would be located closer to Huntington Drive than the
Grandstand (under either the proposed Project or the Project with the modifications suggested in the City Staff
Report), the architectural elements of the West Parking Garage, such as the elevator towers, would appear to reach
or exceed the height of the existing Grandstand, which is the same conclusion reached in the new Draft EIR for
the 41-foot parking garage. As with the structures analyzed in the new Draft EIR, the Project with the AEA
Modifications would be part of a new development that would eliminate the majority of the existing focal views
of the Grandstand from Viewshed A and Viewshed B along Huntington Drive. While the parking structure would
appear taller at its western side, as reflected in the visual simulations for Viewshed A, it would not result in a
substantial impact on views of the Grandstand, as views would be extremely limited even with the three-story
parking structure evaluated in the new Draft EIR. Essentially, the views of the Grandstand from Viewshed A
would be limited to the flagpoles and the western portion of the Grandstand. While the roofline would no longer
be visible, as compared to the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft EIR, the loss of viewing opportunities
of the roofline does not result in a substantially more severe environmental impact. The significant and
unavoidable impact from Viewshed A was caused by the fact that the proposed development (which now includes
the AEA modifications) would obscure or eliminate the majority of existing focal views of the Grandstand itself
from Huntington Drive. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 7-9.)
Views from the remaining three viewshed locations would be the same with or without the AEA
Modifications. Views would be the same from the south at the Holly A venue entrance (Viewshed B), from the
southeast looking northwest (Viewshed C), and from the northeast looking southwest (Viewshed D). (Id. at
Figures 4.1-5 and Figure 4.1-6. As previously mentioned, neither the cinema/theater building nor the retail
building is visible from any of these Viewsheds. Also, while one of the elevator towers of the West Parking
Garage is visible from Viewshed B, even with an increase in height of ten feet, there is no discernable change to
the height of the structure from this viewshed because of the distance from Huntington Drive; the increase in
height of the West Parking Garage, as viewed from Viewshed B, would not result in a new significant
environmental impact or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact. (ld.)
153
As demonstrated by Figures 4.1-3 through 4.1-6 in the new Draft EIR, the then proposed new Saddling
Barn is not visible from Viewsheds A through D. Similarly, as demonstrated by AEA Figure 4.1-3A Revised, the
relocated Saddling Barn would also not be visible from Viewsheds A through D. (ld.)
In summary, none of the potential project modifications would result in new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts with respect to the scenic vistas
represented by Viewsheds A through D. While none of the significance conclusions would change, impacts to
Viewshed A would be slightly greater, as less of the Grandstand would be visible, recognizing that only limited
views of the roofline and flagpoles would be visible under the proposed project evaluated in the new Draft EIR.
Impacts to Viewshed B would be the same as for the project elements analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts; Because the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan area are generally built out and have
very little, if any, remaining development potential, the visual effects of development under the proposed Project
represent the majority of the remaining potential to directly affect the focal views of the Grandstand (as
represented by Viewsheds A and B). As a result, the proposed Project would significantly reduce focal views of
the Grandstand and this reduction would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant
cumulative impact on these views, and the cumulative impacts of the project to focal views of a scenic vista
would be significant and unavoidable. There are no feasible mitigation measures would reduce this impact.
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively create a new source of substantial light or glare,
which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.1-38, 43, Impact 4.1-6.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Compliance with the identified project requirement would reduce this
impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-33, 38; Final EIR AEA at pp. 9-10.)
Mitigation measures have been added in the Final EIR to further reduce this impact, however the impact would
remain significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.1-6, MM 4.1-7, MM 4.1-8, MM 4.1-9. (MMRP at p. 3-21.)
Explanation: Ambient Nighttime Light Levels and Vehicle Headlights: Implementation of the proposed Project,
which entails development of a site that currently consists of surface parking, could create substantial new sources
of light from exterior building illumination and lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation, including the headlights
of vehicular traffic. These new sources of light could affect nighttime views from adjacent sensitive land uses.
(new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-34-35.)
The Community Development Element of the City's General Plan acknowledges that new development
south of the Racetrack and east of the mall would introduce a new and potentially substantial source of nighttime
lighting. The General Plan states that site lighting should reflect the nature of the Commercial land use
designation as festive, yet functional. Lighting structures need to be in scale with the surrounding buildings and be
presented as part of the landscape plan. Also, while on-site lighting needs to be bright enough to promote the
general safety of new uses, great care must be taken to prevent "spillage" of lighting and glare into nearby
residential neighborhoods. (Id.)
There is currently minimal nighttime lighting on the site, with only two light standards in the northern
portion of existing Parking Area C, just south of the Saddling Barn, one light standard in Parking Area A, just
north of the north ticket gates, and one light standard in Parking Area V. There is no lighting in Parking Area B,
which is located north of the Racetrack, adjacent to the "College Tract." The light standards in Parking Areas A
and V will remain in place, while the two light standards in parking Area C will be removed. As under existing
conditions, no lighting will be provided in Parking Area B. (Jd)
Nighttime lighting in the immediate area is produced by street lights along West Huntington Drive, and
internal lighting within the commercial, residential, public, and parking lots immediately west (Westfield Santa
Anita mall), south (multi-family residential and Arcadia Community Center), and east (Arcadia Civic Center and
154
Methodist Hospital) of the site, and vehicle headlights along West Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue. Thus,
mid-level nighttime lighting characterizes the area surrounding the Specific Plan Area, and low-level lighting
characterizes the southerly parking area, such that the addition of new sources of light (building interior and
exterior, as well as project signage) as a result of implementation of the proposed Project would increase ambient
lighting on the site and at the periphery. (Id.)
Specifically, as discussed in the Specific Plan, lighting would be used to highlight architectural elements,
landscaping, and building tenant and project signage. In compliance with Project Requirement 4.1 D, Project
signage shall comply with the Municipal Code. (FEIR, p. 2-1) In addition, security and safety lighting would be
provided, as necessary, in parking areas, service passages, and common areas of the Project utilized by employees
and visitors during and after commercial operating hours. Further, because minimal nighttime traffic is present in
the Specific Plan Area, increased vehicular traffic resulting from the proposed development could result in more
opportunities for vehicular headlights to affect surrounding residences. Residential uses located south of the
ingress and egress point of Holly A venue at the southern end of the Specific Plan Area would be most affected by
the increase in vehicular headlights. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-34-35.)
The intent of the lighting design is to provide varied ambiance to the nighttime appearance, while
providing a general overall level of illumination consistent with customary municipal safety standards. As
discussed in the Specific Plan, in accordance with the 1996 General Plan, and as required by PR 4.IE, below, area
lighting sources would be subject to fixture height requirements, oriented toward the ground, wherever feasible,
or screened to minimize illumination into the surrounding areas and to prevent glare or interference with vehicular
traffic. Very limited and low-level lighting would be provided in Parking Area C and other open space areas. In
these areas, lighting would be limited to decorative lighting in trees and along walkways. (Id.)
Area lighting is intended to illuminate larger areas that are well traveled so as to promote wayfinding and
provide for a safe environment. In addition to area lighting, building lighting would be provided. Building lighting
will be angled towards building surfaces and is intended for aesthetic purposes and/or to illuminate signs, and
would be similar to the building lighting provided in adjacent developments. Both types of lighting would be
designed to avoid direct visibility of the light source. Project requirement PR 4.1 E shall be implemented. (Id. at
pp.4.1-40-35.)
Although PR 4.1 E would reduce lighting impacts to surrounding uses, a substantial increase in nighttime
lighting would still be anticipated to occur on site, as well as in the immediate vicinity. (Id. at p. 4.1-36.) Impacts
related to the introduction of substantial new lighting sources into the Specific Plan Area, including security
lighting of parking areas and signage for new uses, were considered previously by the City in the 1996 General
Plan EIR, which also determined that development within the Specific Plan Area would result in a significant
localized visual impact with respect to increased lighting. Consequently, even though lighting for the proposed
Project would be designed in such a way as to limit spillover onto adjacent residential land uses by focusing
additional light only on the area to be illuminated, increased ambient nighttime light levels on the primarily
unlighted site would remain substantial and would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Implementation
of MMs 4.1-6 through 4.1-9 would ensure that exterior lighting at the Project Site would not exceed maximum
recommended foot-candle requirements established by the Illuminating Engineering Society ("IES") of North
America but would still also be compliant with the safety and illumination requirements established by the IES.
(Final EIR, Corrections and Additions, at pp. Final EIR, pages 2-34 through 2-35, MMRP, page 3-17.)
Although PR 4.1 E and MMs 4.1-6 through 4.1-9 would reduce lighting impacts to surrounding uses, a
substantial increase in nighttime lighting would still be anticipated to occur on site, as well as in the immediate
vicinity. No feasible mitigation beyond mitigation measures MMs 4.1-6 through 4.1-9 is available. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: Because neither the cinema/theater building nor the retail building would change in
height and, in fact, would be reduced in ternlS of overall square footage, the amount of illumination required for
these structures would also be reduced. Further, while the buildings would be located off of the Arcadia Wash,
they would remain in the interior of the Specific Plan Area, as would the Saddling Barn, and would not be visible
to receptors off site. ImRacts from the proposed Project with the AEA Modifications would be less than for the
155
project without the AEA Modifications as previously analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 9-
10.)
The West Parking Garage would increase in height because of the smaller building footprint required to
move the cinema/theater building to the south. While the overall square footage would remain the same, it is
possible that more of the interior of the parking structure could be visible because the structure would, essentially,
become a taller and narrower structure. However, given the distance of the parking structure from off-site
sensitive receptors along Baldwin A venue or Huntington Drive, and the fact that the parking structure is shielded
to the west by Westfield Santa Anita, to the north by the Grandstand, and to the south and east by the rest of the
Project development, interior lighting in the parking structure, if it were to be discernable, would not represent a
substantial increase. Impacts from the proposed Project with the AEA Modifications would be similar to the
project without the AEA Modifications as previously analyzed in the new Draft EIR. ([d.)
Further, lighting requirements with respect to wayfinding (including the lighting of pedestrian areas) or
signage would not change and all building lighting would be angled towards building surfaces and would be
similar to the building lighting provided in the adjacent development. Both lighting for the purposes of
wayfinding and to illuminate buildings would be designed to avoid direct visibility of the light source. The
proposed Project, including the AEA Modifications, continues to be required to comply with PR 4.1 E, as set forth
in the new Draft EIR. PR 4.1 E requires that lighting sources are oriented toward the ground or screened to
minimize illumination into the surrounding areas, which would reduce lighting impacts to surrounding uses. As
with the project without the AEA Modifications evaluated in the new Draft EIR, the AEA Modifications, as well
as the rest of the development in the Commercial Entertainment (CE) Zone, would increase ambient nighttime
light levels on the primarily unlighted site. However, there would be no new significant environmental impacts or
substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with increased nighttime lighting as a result of the
AEA Modifications, compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. Impacts from the proposed Project
with the AEA Modifications would be similar to, but not the same as, the project conditions analyzed in the new
Draft EIR, because limited additional lighting for wayfinding would be provided in the area over the Arcadia
Wash formerly occupied by the cinema/theater building and the retail building. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts: The City is nearly built out and contains numerous existing sources of daytime
glare and nighttime lighting. The geographic context for both issue areas (e.g., glare and lighting) is site-specific
and includes the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, including projects implemented under buildout of the
General Plan and those cumulative projects identified with views of the Project Site. Cumulative development
within the surrounding areas could result in some increase in daytime glare, as specific building materials and
configurations are uncertain. However, these potential increases are likely to be minor and consistent with the
existing built environment due to limited development potential and existing City regulations. Further, future
projects would, in many cases, be subject to CEQA review and design review of the applicable lead agency, and
would likely require mitigation for their project specific effects, which could also reduce project impacts to a less-
than-significant level, depending on the Project and the mitigation measures proposed. Consequently, cumulative
daytime glare within the sUlTounding area would be less than significant. As implementation of the proposed
Project would include mitigation to reduce glare, the proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively
considerable contribution to this impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with daytime glare would not
be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.1-38.)
Development within the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area could result in the limited creation of
new sources of light that could affect nighttime views. The geographic context of the cumulative analysis of
nighttime lighting includes areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. Past development, including Methodist
Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, and surrounding commercial and residential uses have resulted in a cumulative
increase in nighttime lighting within the area, which has resulted in a cumulative loss of available nighttime
views. Because minimal nighttime lighting currently exists in the southern surface parking area of the Specific
Plan Area, and even though direct illumination of project structures, features, and walkways would be required to
prevent spillover light on surrounding areas, ambient nighttime lighting levels in the area would substantially
increase due to increased future development of Methodist Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, associated signage
156
along property perimeters, and associated vehicle headlights. The cumulative impact would be significant.
Because implementation of the proposed development would result in a substantial new source of nighttime
lighting within this area, the proposed Project would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
significant cumulative impact, and the localized cumulative nighttime lighting impact would be significant and
unavoidable. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less than significant
level. (ld. at p. 4.1-39.)
B. Air Quality
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? In specific, would construction activities associated
with the proposed Project exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District Standards? (new Draft EIR at p.
4.2-23,42, Impact 4.2-2.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District Standards for VOC, NOX, and CO and would result in a projected air
quality violation. Compliance with the identified project requirement and implementation of mitigation measures
MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n), as well as MM 4. 13-3(a)-(c), would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level. Significant and unavoidable impacts would remain related to construction air quality emissions.
(new Draft EIR at pp. 4.2-23-43; Final EIR AEA at p. 12.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.2-2(a), MM 4.2-2(b), MM 4.2-2(c), MM 4.2-2(d), MM 4.2-2(e), MM 4.2-2(1),
MM 4.2-2(g), MM 4.2-2(h), MM 4.2-2(i), MM 4.2-2m, MM 4.2-2(k), MM 4.2-2(1), MM 4.2-2(m), MM 4.2-2(n);
see also MM 4.13-3(a)-(c). (MMRP at pp. 3-23-30,99-100.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD Standards
for VOC, NOX, and CO and would result in a projected air quality violation. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-23.) This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the identified project requirement and
implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n), as well as MM 4. 13-3(a)-(c), would
reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant
and unavoidable. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.2-23-31.)
Emissions resulting from construction activities were analyzed using methodology recommended by the
SCAQMD. During construction, four basic types of activities would be expected to occur and generate emissions.
First, demolition of existing structures on the Project Site would occur and some debris from the demolished
buildings would be exported from the site. Approximately 3,495,400 cubic feet of demolition debris (or 129,459
cubic yards) is expected to be produced during this activity. (This figure is likely to be reduced due to the change
from the demolition to the relocation of the Saddling Barn.) However, 50 percent of this debris, including asphalt
from the parking areas, will be crushed, reconditioned, and reused (or recycled) as base material for new
roadways and parking lots OIl site, resulting in only 1,747,700 cubic feet (or 64,730 cubic yards) that would be
exported from the Project Site to the Azusa Land Reclamation facility, as discussed in Section 4.14 (Utilities and
Service Systems) of the neW Draft E1R. Second, the site would be prepared, excavated, and graded to
accommodate the new building foundations, new parking lots, and development of the water feature. It is assumed
that grading would be substantially balanced, meaning that no significant quantity of soil would be transported off
site for disposal nor would soil be transported on site for use in construction activities. Next, the proposed
development would be conslIucted, including commercial and office space, the parking structures, and the new
Simulcast Center. Finally, new landscaping would be planted around the new facility and the facility would be
readied for use, including the application of architectural coatings and the paving of surfaces, including new
roadways and surface parking lots. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project are expected to
occur over a period of approximately 18 months, with construction commencing in 2007. All construction activity
estimates were based on the June 2006, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Park Construction Equipment and
Personnel Estimate spreadsh"et, which is based on the gross buildable area of the proposed Project and also
157
includes the demolition of the south ticket gates, portions of the Grandstand to accommodate the Simulcast
Center, and the four structures in the stable area. (ld.)
As shown in Table 4.2-4 (Estimated Peak Daily Construction Emissions) of the new Draft EIR,
construction-related daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx during demolition,
while the peak daily emissions of the other four construction-related pollutants would not exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-32.) During site grading, the proposed Project is expected to
exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOx and peak daily emissions of VOC, CO, SOx, and PM,. construction-related
emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. The estimated peak daily construction emissions
for site grading assume implementation of dust control measures listed in PR 4.2A (see MMRP at pp. 21-22),
which would be estimated to reduce PM,o emissions resulting from fugitive dust by approximately 50 percent. In
addition, construction-related emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and CO during
building construction and for VOC during the architectural coating phase; construction-related emissions of SOx
and PM,. would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Emissions calculations of VOC during the
architectural coating phase conservatively assume painting of all exposed interior and exterior surfaces. No
SCAQMD significance thresholds would be exceeded for the criteria pollutants during the asphalt paving phase.
(new Draft ElR at p. 4.2-32.)
Because different phases of project construction are expected to occur concurrently on some days, the
combined emissions for the two most likely scenarios are shown in Table 4.2-5 of the new Draft EIR in order to
show the maximum emissions generated by overall construction of the proposed Project per day. On days when
demolition and site grading activities are expected to occur concurrently, SCAQMD significance thresholds for
NOx would be exceeded, while the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, CO, SOx, and PM,. would not be exceeded.
On days where site grading and building construction activities are expected to occur, SCAQMD thresholds for
VOC, NOx, and CO would be exceeded, while the SCAQMD thresholds for SOx and PM,. would not be
exceeded. Based on these exceedances, this impact would be significant. Demolition and site grading phases
would occur concurrently for approximately one week, while site grading and building construction phases would
occur concurrently for approximately one month (ld.).
The estimated combined daily construction emissions assume implementation of dust control measures
listed in PR 4.2A, which would be estimated to reduce PM,. emissions resulting from fugitive dust during site
grading activities by approximately 50 percent. Under SCAQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust, one dust control
measure involves the application of water in sufficient quantities to disturbed soil to prevent the generation of
visible dust plumes. The calculations in Table 4.2-4 and Table 4.2-5 of the new Draft EIR assumed watering of
exposed surfaces at the Project Site three times daily during grading and excavation of the Project Site, in
accordance with PR 4.2A. (Id.)
Implementation of PR 4.2A would reduce the PM,. emissions during site grading by providing additional
dust suppression, and would reduce PM,. emissions to below SCAQMD significance thresholds. (new Draft EIR
at p. 4.2-34.) Furthermore, VOC, NOx. and CO emission levels would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds
during the demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating phases, or when two phases would
occur concurrently. These emissions would be generated entirely from construction equipment diesel exhaust
during these phases. (ld.) In order to reduce these emission levels, the Project will follow MM 4.2-2(a) through
MM 4.2-2(k). (ld.)
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(k) would ensure that
construction-related air quality impacts associated with VOC, NOX, and CO emissions are minimized at the
Project Site during demolition, site grading, and building, by requiring the use of diesel-powered equipment that
has been retrofitted with after-treatment products to the extent that they are readily available in the Basin and cost
effective; the use of low-NO X diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily available in the Basin and cost effective
for heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment; the use of alternative fuel construction equipment to the extent
feasible; the proper maintenance of construction equipment; the minimization of emissions from construction
equipment during periods of non-use; reliance on the electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction site,
158
rather than the use of electrical generators that are powered by internal combustible engines to the extent feasible;
configuration of construction parking to minimize traffic interference; provision of temporary traffic controls to
maintain smooth traffic flow; scheduling of construction activities that affect traffic flow on the arterial system to
off-peak hours; utilization of dedicated left-turn lanes for movement of construction trucks and equipment on site
and off site; and mailing of notification to owners and occupants of all developed land uses immediately
bordering the Specific Plan Area providing a schedule for major construction activities that will occur through the
duration of the construction period, including the identification and contact number for a community liaison and
designated construction manager that would be available on site to monitor construction activities. Additionally,
and as identified in Section 4.13 as mitigation measure MM 4.13-3(a) of the new Draft EIR, the City has pre-
approved construction routes, which include, but are not limited to, Baldwin A venue, Colorado Place, and
Huntington Drive to and from 1-210. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.2-36-37.) Therefore, mitigation measure
MM 4.13-3(a) would require that heavily loaded trucks traverse along pre-approved routes only, which would
serve to reduce air quality impacts on sensitive receptors from construction-related truck trips. However, due to
variables associated with daily construction activity at the Project Site, as well as whether retrofitted diesel-
powered equipment, low-NOX diesel fuel, and alternative fuel sources are readily available in the Basin and cost
effective, the actual reduction in VOC, NOX, and CO emissions resulting from implementation of these measures
is not quantifiable for the proposed Project; further, the SCAQMD has not approved reductions that may be
applied as a result of these measures. (See also MMRP at pp. 3-29-30.) Therefore, although these measures would
reduce construction-related emissions, the measures are not expected to reduce peak daily construction emissions
to below the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOX, and CO. As no additional
feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, construction-related VOC, NOX, and CO impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
Emission levels of VOCs, which are a precursor for ozone, would also exceed SCAQMD significance
thresholds during the application of architectural coatings (paint and primer) for the proposed Project. In order to
reduce the VOC emissions levels associated with architectural coatings, the Project shall comply with
MM 4.2-2(1) through MM 4.2-2(n). (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.2-2(1) would reduce the VOC emission associated with
architectural coatings, but not to a level below SCAQMD thresholds. (new Draft ElR at p. 4.2-38.)
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(m) and MM 4.2-2(n) would further reduce VOC emissions, but
not to a less-than-significant level. As no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions,
VOC impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
AEA Modifications. The pylons associated with the West Parking Garage would be required to be
longer, while conversely, the pylons associated with covering of the Arcadia Wash would be shorter due to the
fact that the cinema/theater building and retail structure would no longer be located on the Wash. However,
grading activities are anticipated to be the same as evaluated in the new Draft EIR, as the same areas would still
require grading in preparation for development. The AEA Modifications would result in a reduction of
construction activities, compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft ErR, due to a reduction of overall square
footage and the fact that the wings of the Saddling Barn would be retained. Also, implementation of the identified
project requirements and mitigation measures would reduce the amount of construction-related emissions of
PM 10. Impacts would be less than under the project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in the new Draft
EIR, due to a reduction of overall square footage and the fact that the Saddling Barn would be retained (in large
part), rather than demolished.
Cumulative Impacts: SCAQMD recommends that individual projects that exceed the SCAQMD
recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts be considered to cause a cumulatively considerable
increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-42.)
Construction of the Project would have significant impacts related to emissions; therefore, the cumulative impact
is significant, the Project's contribution is cumulative considerable, and the cumulative impact would be
significant and unavoidable. (ld. at p. 4.2-43.)
159
Impact: Would the Project either individually or cumulatively violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? In specific, would operational activities associated
with the proposed Project exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District Standards? (new Draft EIR at p.
4.2-31,42, Impact 4.2-3.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD standards for
VOC, NOX, CO, and PM I 0 and would result in a projected air quality violation. Significant and unavoidable
impacts would remain related to operational air quality emissions. (Id.; MMRP, at p. 3-28-29.) Therefore, this
impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-31.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.2-3(a)-(c)
Explanation: Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal
day-to-day activities on the Project Site after occupation. Stationary, area source emissions would be generated by
the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance
equipment. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site.
Delivery trucks would make periodic trips to and from the Project Site. These delivery trips are anticipated to
occur 24 hours per day. (Id.)
The analysis of daily operational emissions from the proposed Project has been prepared using the
URBEMIS 2002 computer model recommended by the SCAQMD. In terms of operational emissions, the
proposed Project has incorporated certain features in its design that would help reduce the operational emissions
that would otherwise be generated by the proposed Project. These design features include the following:
. Lighting to provide safety along pedestrian routes;
. Shade trees to shade sidewalks and encourage use by pedestrians. (Id.)
The proposed Project's design features would encourage pedestrian activity and safety, which would
reduce the emissions from the operation of motor vehicles by employees and/or visitors. (Id.) Trip generation
rates in the Project traffic study were used to determine operational emissions and account for the existing
environmental characteristics of the Project Site and vicinity that may help to further encourage non-motor
vehicle transportation by employees of the proposed Project. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.2-31-32 & App. 1.) These
following environmental characteristics are recommended in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook:
. Street trees that provide coverage of portions of the sidewalks;
. Destinations within the Project vicinity accessible by pedestrians;
. A reasonable level of pedestrian safety due to street lighting;
. Existing transit service within walking distance of the Project Site. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-32.)
Also, the proposed Project includes the installation of a trolley to provide transportation within the Project
Site. The trolley would be battery-powered, with a stationary induction charging element concealed under the
tracks near the north terminus, and a pick-up and rectifier onboard the vehicle. Each time the trolley passes over
the stationary element, power is transferred across the air gap one inch into the vehicle battery pack, a completely
clean and efficient recharging method. As such, operation of the trolley on the Project Site would not contribute to
daily operational emissions associated with the proposed Project. (ld.)
The results of the URBEMIS 2002 calculations for the daily operational emissions of the proposed
Project are presented in Table 4.2-6a and Table 4.2-6b of the new Draft EIR, which takes into consideration the
Project design features listed above for project trip reduction, as well as the final trip generation rates for the
proposed Project in Table 4.13-6 of the new Draft EIR. These tables show the maximum emissions in pounds per
day for each criteria air pollutant during winter or summer, whichever is higher. Data in Table 4.2-6a and
Table 4.2-6b of the new Draft EIR reflect output data from the URBEMIS 2002 calculations. (ld.) Calculation
data sheets are provided in Appendix B 1 of the new Draft EIR. (Id.) MM 4.2-3(a) will reduce idling time of
160
delivery trucks to the Project Site during operation. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-33; MMRP 3-29-30; see also MM
4.2-3(b)-(c), FEIR at p. 4-450-451, MMRP at p. 3-29-30.)
As shown, operation of the proposed Project would generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of
significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, and PMIO on weekdays and Saturdays. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.2-33.) Emissions of SOx during operation of the proposed Project on weekdays and Saturdays
during racing season would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD. The
exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds for these four criteria pollutants is primarily due to the increase in motor
vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Implementation of MM 4.2-3(a) as well as MM 4.2-3(b) and (c)
would help reduce operational emissions, but not to a less-than-significant level. (Jd.; MMRP 3-29-30.) Based on
the Solar Application for The Shops at Santa Anita Study, the use of solar panel installations for the proposed
Project would be infeasible. As no further feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable. (Jd. at p. 4.2-43, FEIR at p. 4-450-456)
AEA Modifications. Even with the reduction in square footage, cinema/theatre screens and seats, and
vehicle trips (as projected in the AEA) pursuant to the AEA Modifications, air quality emissions would still
exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as described above. With respect to these air quality
emissions, there would be no new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
environmental impacts associated with the AEA Modifications compared to the previously-analyzed project
conditions in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be less than under the project without the AEA Modifications, as
previously analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square footage and the fact that the
Saddling Barn would be retained (in large part), rather than demolished. However, the impact conclusion still
remains significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 12-14.)
Cumulative Impacts: SCAQMD recommends that individual projects that exceed the SCAQMD
recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts be considered to cause a cumulatively considerable
increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-42.)
As discussed above, the proposed Project's operations will have significant impacts related to emissions;
therefore, the cumulative impact is significant, the Project's contribution is cumulative considerable, and the
cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Jd. at p. 4.2-43.)
Impact: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors including VOCs and NOX)? (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.2-33, 4.2-42, Impact 4.2-4.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants (CO, PMIO, and precursors of ozone VOC and NOx)
for which the proposed Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Jd.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.2-2(a); MM 4.2-2(b); MM 4.2-2(c); MM 4.2-2(d); MM 4.2-2(e); MM 4.2-2(1);
MM 4.2-2(g); MM 4.2-2(h); MM 4.2-2(i); MM 4.2-2U); MM 4.2-2(k); MM 4.2-2(1);. MM 4.2-2(m);
MM 4.2-2(n). (MMRP at pp. 3-23-3-30.)
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants (CO, PM 1 0, and precursors of ozone VOC and NOX) for which the proposed
Project region is in non attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.2-41.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the identified project
requirement and implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n) would reduce this
impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. (Jd at p. 4.2-42; MMRP at pp. 3-23-28.) Therefore, this impact
would be considered significant and unavoidable. (new Draft ElR at p. 4.2-42.)
161
A significant impact may occur if a project would add a cumulatively considerable contribution of a
federal or state non-attainmcnt pollutant. Because the Basin is currently in nonattainment for ozone (for which
VOC and NOX are precursors) and PMIO under national and state standards, and is in non attainment for CO
under national standards, projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality exceedance. With regard to determining the significance of the proposed Project contribution,
the SCAQMD neither recommends quantified analyses of cumulative construction or operational emissions, nor
provides separate methodologies or thresholds of significance to be used to assess cumulative construction or
operational impacts. Instead, the SCAQMD recommends that a project's potential contribution to cumulative
impacts' should be assessed using the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts; that is,
individual development projects that generate construction-related or operational emissions that exceed the
SCAQMD-recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively
considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. (ld.)
Construction-related daily emissions associated with project development would exceed SCAQMD
significance thresholds for NOX during the demolition and site grading phases, NOX and CO during the building
construction phase, and VOC when architectural coatings (paints and primers) are applied to the new buildings.
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-26 & Table 4.2-4.) No SCAQMD significance thresholds would be exceeded during
asphalt paving on the Project Site. In addition, the SCAQMD threshold for NOX would be exceeded on days
where both demolition and site grading would occur, and SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOX, and CO would be
exceeded on days when grading and construction would occur simultaneously. Therefore, the emissions generated
by construction of the proposed Project would be cumulatively considerable and would constitute a substantial
contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation. Compliance with PR 4.2A and implementation of
mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n) would reduce these emissions, but not to a less-than-
significant level. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-34 & Table 4.2-5; MMRP at pp. 3-28-30.)
Operation of the proposed Project would generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance
recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOX, CO, and PMIO. Because the Basin is in nonattainment for
PM 10, and both VOC and NOX are precursors of ozone, for which the Basin is also in nonattainment, the
proposed Project would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to ozone emissions. (Id.)
Because the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and precursors of
ozone for which the Basin is in non-attainment, the proposed Project would make cumulatively considerable
contributions of these pollutants during both construction and operation of the proposed Project. Because no
feasible mitigation beyond what is proposed is available to further reduce these contributions to levels below
SCAQMD thresholds, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable. (Id. at pp. 4.2-34-35.)
AEA Modifications. As discussed above, the pylons associated with the West Parking Garage would be
required to be longer, while conversely, the pylons associated with covering of the Arcadia Wash would be
shorter due to the fact that the cinema/theater building and retail structure would no longer be located on the
Wash. However, grading activities are anticipated to be the same as evaluated in the new Draft EIR, as the same
areas would still require grading in preparation for development. The AEA Modifications would result in a
reduction of construction activities, compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of
overall square footage and the fact that the wings of the Saddling Barn would be retained. Also, implementation
of the identified project requirements and mitigation measures would reduce the amount of construction-related
emissions of PM,.. Impacts would be less than under the project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in
the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square footage and the fact that the Saddling Barn would be
retained (in large part), rather than demolished.
As discussed above, even with the reduction in square footage, cinema/theatre screens and seats, and
vehicle trips (as projected in the AEA) pursuant to the AEA Modifications, air quality emissions would still
exceed the thresholds established by the SCAQMD, as described above. With respect to these air quality
emissions, there would be no new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
environmental impacts associated with the AEA Modifications compared to the previously-analyzed project
162
conditions in the new Draft EIR. Impacts would be less than under the project without the AEA Modifications, as
previously analyzed in the new Draft ElR, due to a reduction of overall square footage and the fact that the
Saddling Barn would be retained (in large part), rather than demolished. However, the impact conclusion still
remains significant and unavoidable. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 12-14.)
Cumulative Impacts: Any individual project that exceeds the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds
for project specific impacts is considered to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those
pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. (Id. at p. 35.) SCAQMD recommends that individual projects
that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts be considered to cause a
cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.2-42.) As discussed above, the proposed Project's operations will have significant impacts
related to emissions; therefore, the cumulative impact is significant, the Project's contribution is cumulative
considerable, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Id. at p. 4.2-43.)
Impact: Would the Project individually or cumulatively expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? In specific, would construction activities associated with the proposed Project generate emissions
that would result in an exceedance of localized significance thresholds for PMIO established by the SCAQMD,
and, therefore, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.2-36, 4.2-
44, Impact 4.2-6.)
Finding: Changes or alter3tions have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would
generate emissions that would result in an exceedance of localized significance thresholds for PM I 0 established
by the SCAQMD, and, therefore, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of PR 4.2A and mitigation measures MM 4.2 2(a)
through MM 4.2 2(n) would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact
would be considered significant and unavoidable. (new Draft EIR at 4.2-36, 4.2-44.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.2-2(a); MM 4.2-2(b); MM 4.2-2(c); MM 4.2-2(d); MM 4.2-2(e); MM 4.2-2(1);
MM 4.2-2(g); MM 4.2-2(h);MM 4.2-2(i); MM 4.2-2(j); MM 4.2-2(k); MM 4.2-2(1);. MM 4.2-2(m); MM 4.2-2(n).
(MMRP at pp. 3-23-28.)
Explanation: Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate emissions that would
result in an exceedance of localized significance thresholds for PM I 0 established by the SCAQMD, and,
therefore, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Implementation of PR 4.2A and mitigation measures MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n)
would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable. (ld. at p. 4.2-45.)
As mentioned above, LSTs have been developed by the SCAQMD to determine maximum allowable
concentrations of criteria air pollutants during construction of the proposed Project. (new Draft EIR at p. 45.2-36.)
LSTs have been established by the SCAQMD only for construction of projects and do not apply to emissions
during operation. For projects greater than 5 acres in total area, dispersion modeling is done to detennine worst-
case pollutant concentration at sensitive receptors associated with construction of the Project. Localized
concentrations were estimated in the Analytic Method section and assume implementation of PR 4.2A and
MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n). Total worst-case construction emissions for the proposed Project are included
in Table 4.2-in the new Draft EIR and compared to LSTs for SRA 9, the source receptor area that includes the
City. Localized CO I-hour concentrations, CO 8-hour concentrations, and N02 I-hour concentrations would not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds during project construction. (See Table 4.2-7 of the new Draft EIR.) However, the
proposed Project would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for PMIO during project construction. Implementation of
PR 4.2A and MM 4.2-2(a) through MM 4.2-2(n) would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level.
Therefore, as the proposed Project construction would exceed the SCAQMD LST for PM I 0, this is a significant
and unavoidable impact. (Id.)
163
Cumulative Impacts: The proposed Project could expose sensitive receptors to concentrations that exceed
the SCAQMD LST for PM]" during project construction which would result in a significant, localized cumulative
impact. (new Draft EIR at p. 44.). Under SCAQMD's voluntary standards, if a project exceeds an LST for a
particular source receptor area, then the proposed Project would be considered to contribute to a violation of a
state or federal ambient air quality standard for pollutant concentrations. Because the Project would contribute to
this existing violation of the ambient air quality standards, the contribution is cumulatively considerable, and this
cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. (Id)
AEA Modifications: The pylons associated with the West Parking Garage would be required to be
longer, while conversely, the pylons associated with covering of the Arcadia Wash would be shorter due to the
fact that the cinema/theater building and retail structure would no longer be located on the Wash. However,
grading activities are anticipated to be the same as evaluated in the new Draft EIR, as the same areas would still
require grading in preparation for development. The AEA Modifications would result in a reduction of
construction activities, compared to conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR, due to a reduction of overall square
footage and the fact that the wings of the Saddling Barn would be retained. Also, implementation of the identified
project requirements and mitigation measures would reduce the amount of construction-related emissions of
PMIO. While impacts would be reduced, it is anticipated that the AEA Modifications would still exceed the
SCAQMD LST for PM ]0. given the magnitude of exceedance represented by Table 4.2-7 of the new Draft EIR
and the relatively modest decrease in overall square footage represented by the AEA Modifications. However,
there would be no new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
environmental impacts associated with construction-related LST emissions as a result of the AEA Modifications.
Impacts would be less than under the project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in the new Draft EIR,
due to a reduction of overall square footage and the fact that the Saddling Barn would be retained (in large part),
rather than demolished.
C. Cultural Resources
Impact: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change, either individually or cumulatively, in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the 2005 CEQA Guidelines? In specific,
would implementation of the proposed Project result in a substantial adverse change to two contributing buildings
of the Santa Anita Park Historic District within the Paddock Gardens Area: the Saddling Barn and the south ticket
gates? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-54, 87, Impact 4.4-2.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial
adverse change to two contributing buildings of the Santa Anita Park Historic District within the Paddock
Gardens Area: the Saddling Bam (including the Jockeys Room) and the south ticket gates. (new Draft EIR at p.
4.4-55; Final EIR AEA at pp. 16-20.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of
mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(a) through MM 4.4-2(1) would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Id.) It would be
infeasible to relocate the existing Jockeys Room and south ticket gates, as set forth in the studies by Holmes
Culley respectively dated April 16, 2007 and AprilS, 2007.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.4-2(a), MM 4.4-2(b), MM 4.4-2(c), MM 4.4-2(d), MM 4.4-2(e), MM 4.4-2(1).
(MMRP at pp. 3-37-39.)
Explanation: The project proposes reconfiguration of the perimeter of Santa Anita Park's entry structures at the
south end of the Paddock Gardens Area, including a portion of the adjacent parking lot. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-
55.) A new open space area, an extension of the Paddock Gardens, would provide a visual and spatial connection
between the new commercial entertainment component proposed for the south parking lot with the Paddock
Gardens and Grandstand. This reconfiguration will connect the proposed commercial/entertainment development
that is planned for the south parking lot, with the existing facilities of Santa Anita Park (i.e., Paddock Gardens,
Grandstand, Clubhouse). (Id.l The proposed Project replaces the existing southern parking lot with expanded
164
formal garden space and a commercial entertainment district with a small-town scaled streetscape as its backdrop.
From the south, the proposed Project maintains a similar sequence to that which visitors have experienced in the
past. The visitor would be drawn north, toward the Paddock Gardens and Grandstand, through a new commercial
center along its Main Street. At the north end of the Main Street, the visitor would proceed through a visually
unobstructed Paddock Gardens expansion toward the Walking Circle, Kingsbury Fountain, Grandstand, and
moved Saddling Barn. Thc design of the expanded Paddock Gardens would extend the alignment of the
north/south axis of the Walking Circle through new formal gardens connecting to the new development's Main
Street. Before entering the Paddock Gardens on live racing days, visitors would pass through ticketing gates and
pay admission, as they do today. On non-live racing days, entry to the Paddock Gardens would be free of charge.
On the east, the visitor's entry sequence through the east ticket gates and into the Paddock Gardens would remain
unchanged. (Id. at p.4.4-55-56.)
AEA Modifications: The only significant and unavoidable cultural resources impacts identified in the
new Draft EIR relate to demolition of the Saddling Barn and the south ticket gates. The AEA Modifications
include, in lieu of demolition, relocation of the two major wings of the existing 1938 Saddling Barn to the same
general location that the original 1934 Saddling Barn occupied in the western portion of the Paddock Gardens.
Essentially, the two relocated wings of the existing Saddling Barn would form a "chevron" or "V-shape" into the
curved space occupied by the 1934 Saddling Barn, with a new central area connecting the two wings. The two
wings would be angled out from the newly constructed central entry bay. The relocated Saddling Barn would be
approximately 19,000 square feet. The existing Jockeys Room, entry bay, and south ticket gates would still be
demolished. The new central entry bay would be constructed with a pass-through incorporated into the design to
allow the horses to enter into the Saddling Barn from the Round Bam (to the west) in preparation to race. In order
to accomplish this relocation, the Saddling Barn (which consists of the Barn itself and the Viewing Terrace)
would be moved in two sections, with the western portion comprising Section A and the eastern portion
comprising Section B. The Relocation Study concluded that the Saddling Barn can be successfully relocated with
"a reasonable anticipation of success," recognizing that there are always inherent uncertainties in moving a
structure that is almost 70 years old. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 16-20.) The feasibility of moving the south ticket
gates to some other location was also investigated and in a letter from Holmes Culley, consulting structural
engineers, to the applicant dated April 5, 2007, the conclusion was reached that relocation was infeasible due to
the structure's deteriorated and structurally unsound condition. Similarly, relocation of the existing Jockeys Room
also would be infeasible, as indicated in the study by Holmes Culley dated April 16, 2007.
The proposed relocation of the Saddling Barn would result in most of the 1938 structure being moved
away from the site upon which it was constructed. However, the nearby relocation site allows retention of many
aspects of historic integrity. While the exact location would be different, the relocation site is the location of the
original 1934 Saddling Barn. As such, this site and its adjacencies and functions were part of the original
relationship (of the Saddling Barn to the Round/Receiving Barn, Walking Circle, and Grandstand access) of the
design by architect Gordon Kaufmann and landscape architect Tommy Tomson. The relationship between the
Saddling Barn's location and its relative position to other contributing resources that are functionally related and
support the ongoing historic use for thoroughbred horse racing can be maintained with this relocation. (ld.)
The historic use of Santa Anita Park is thoroughbred horse racing. One of the activities traditionally
taking place at the Racetrack is the ability of the patrons to observe horses before the races as they are saddled up
and paraded pre and post race in the Walking Circle as they proceed to and from the Racetrack itself. The chevron
shape of the relocated Saddling Barn would continue to allow for patrons of the Racetrack to observe preparation
of horses for racing. The original 1934 Saddling Bam was sited in the same location as that proposed in the new
Draft EIR for a new Saddling Barn and under the potential project modifications for a relocated Saddling Barn. In
the era between 1934 and 1938, the horses came from the nearby (just due west) Round/Receiving Barn into the
Saddling Barn, where they were groomed and saddled. After saddling, they would enter the Walking Circle in the
Paddock Gardens area, and eventually through the Grandstand to reach the Racetrack. (Id.)
The functional relationship between the relocated Saddling Barn and its adjacent facilities also supports
the traditional sequence of the preparation of the horses for racing, including public viewing opportunities. The
165
horses would continue to be led from the private areas of the facility, such as the stables to the Round/Receiving
Barn where regulators conduct inspections and testing. From there the horses would be led into the relocated
Saddling Barn through the central entry pass-through. The public would continue to view the horses as they are
prepared and exercised in the Saddling Barn, and then led through the Paddock Gardens and its Walking Circle to
the Grandstand access into the Racetrack. The original path of travel (between 1934 and 1938) took the horses to
a Saddling Bam that was located in the proposed relocation site. As elements were added (Kingsbury Fountain)
and changed (various points of access through the Grandstand) the path of travel of the horses changed, however,
the overall pageantry and parading sequences have remained. The sequences, primarily based on function, are also
determined by horseracing regulations, which still allow the public in close proximity to the horses. Throughout
the Racetrack's history, racehorses have been paraded for the public, and the relocation of the Saddling Barn
would allow for the continued pre-race pageantry of parading horses for public review in the same manner as
originally provided between 1934 and 1938. No new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase
in the severity of environmental impacts would occur as a result of a change in the manner or location of the
parading of horses. Impacts would be similar to the project without the AEA Modifications as previously
proposed and analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
With the relocation of the Saddling Barn, the historic use of the area for the promenade of horses would
be retained. Such adaptations are not unusual in historic sites based on changes of procedures and technologies.
For example, numerous historic movie theaters retain their historic use as exhibitors of motion pictures. However,
the manner in which the public accesses the theater (ticket purchase) and services (concession stand operations)
has been adjusted in form, placement, and sequence. Additionally, historic projection booths, no longer used, have
been removed or altered to support modern motion picture display technologies. The experience of hearing the
film as it moves onto the sprockets of the projector and the perceptible flickering of the film leader is no longer
part of the movie experience, nor is it required that motion picture theaters that pre-dated sound on film maintain
use of organs to provide sound accompaniment. (ld.)
The locatioll of the relocated Saddling Barn would retain the functional adjacencies of the relocated
Saddling Barn, support continuation of the historic use of Santa Anita Park, and would be similar to the original
location and adjacencies designed by the team of architect Gordon Kaufmann and landscape architect Tommy
Tomson. The Saddling Bani would remain within its original settillg, which is the Paddock Gardens. Its
relationship with other Paddock Gardens elements remains, as it would still be adjacent to the Kingsbury Fountain
and the Walking Circle. (Id.)
The relocated Saddling Bani would retain most aspects of the original desigll of the 1938 Saddling Bam.
The plan of the Barn would be adapted to the site (the wings angled), but the form, spaces, structure, and style of
the Saddling Barn and its Viewing Terrace would remain. While the central entry bay would be rebuilt to conform
to and connect the reconfigured wings, the original front fa9ade of this bay would be used in the rebuilt central
entry bay. (Id.)
The relocation also would rehabilitate the Saddling Bam and its Viewing Terrace. The original historic
materials would be moved and retained, including the living ivy plant that would also be moved and reestablished
on the Saddling Bam's Viewing Terrace. The westernmost end cap, which was enclosed, would be reopened to
match the original open fenestration of the easternmost end cap. The rehabilitation would be conducted
employing the Secretary of the lllterior's Stalldards for Rehabilitatioll in order to maintain original materials and
workmallship of the Saddling Barn. (Id.)
While the 1938 Saddling Barn would no longer be in its original location, the proposed location on the
site of the original 1934 Saddling Barn allows the structure to retain its historic feelillg and association relative to
the Paddock Gardens. This relocation also maintains the Barn's historic sense of its period and its historic
functional adjacencies. As with historic motion picture theaters, most members of the public understand the
concept that facilities evolve over time and are even interested in understanding the changing context. They also
understand the difference between an interpretive museum, like Williamsburg, that depicts a facility at a specific
point in time, and a facility that continues in use, such as an historic movie theater or racetrack, and its ongoing
166
need to adapt to support cun'ent technologies and patron expectations while the basic historic use continues at the
site. As a mitigation measure (MM 4.4-2(b )), an interpretive display would be created as part of or near the
relocated Saddling Bam. This interpretive display would explain the evolution of the Paddock Gardens and
Saddling Bam and engage the public to learn about the history of the Santa Anita Historic District. No new
significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur
to the historic use or context of the Saddling Barn. Impacts would be the less than those under the project without
the AEA Modifications as previously proposed and analyzed in the new Draft EIR, because the existing Saddling
Barn would be retained, rather than "replicated." (Id.)
The 1948 Jockeys Room, which is located immediately behind (and connected to) the existing Saddling
Barn, is in relatively poor condition on the interior, and is a large and awkward shape with limited architectural
character (as a back-of-the-house facility tacked onto the rear of the structure). The Relocation Study notes that
the Jockeys Room "is also in a position that requires it to be gone before the Barn and Terrace can be relocated."
The Jockeys Room would require structural upgrades to meet current seismic resistance standards and would also
require a complete interior renovation to meet current locker/clubhouse standards. The loss of this back-of-the-
house area would not be experienced by the public in terms of viewing of functions. While the south wall of the
Jockeys Room is visible as one approaches the Paddock Gardens area from the south, there is nothing about its
function that is communicated by its form. While the public views some preparation of horses, the personal
preparation of the jockeys is private. Based on all of these factors, the existing Jockeys Room would be
demolished and a new, modern, and seismically safe locker/dressing facility with detailing complementary to the
relocated Saddling Barn would be constructed. The new Jockeys Room would be constructed in the northern wing
of the relocated Saddling Barn closest to the Grandstand and Round Barn. No new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental impacts would occur as a result of demolition of
the Jockeys Room. Impacts would be the same as under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR.
(Id.)
Although rehabilitation would be accomplished using the Secretary of the lnterior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. the demolition of the Jockeys Room, the entry bay, and the south ticket gates, and the
reconfiguration of the Saddling Barn into a "V" shape, would still result in significant and unavoidable cultural
resources impacts. Although relocation of the Saddling Barn remains a significant and unavoidable impact, it is
preferable to demolition because the existing Saddling Barn would retain its existing function and use in the same
structure, recognizing that some changes would be made in order to relocate the structure and satisfy current
Building Code requirements. According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, the four treatment approaches - presented in order or preference - are preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, and reconstruction, with demolition being the least preferable approach. The relocated Saddling Barn
would undergo rehabilitation with seismic upgrade and accessibility improvements, as further described in the
geology and soils discussion. The rehabilitation would also allow the existing westernmost (and enclosed) end cap
that would be relocated as part of the northern wing of the Saddling Barn to be reopened. No new significant
environmental impacts or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with relocation of the
Saddling Barn would result from implementation of the potential project modifications. Impacts would be less
than the project without the AEA Modifications as analyzed in the new Draft EIR since the Saddling Barn would
be retained (in large part), rather than demolished and replicated. (Id.)
The south ticket gate structure would be demolished, as previously evaluated in the new Draft EIR. The
Relocation Study analyzed the form and existing conditions of the south ticket gate structure. The Relocation
study states, "The structure is essentially an open pavilion covering small enclosed ticket booths" and that "there
are roof areas which connect Ticketing to the Saddling Barn and the perimeter security fence. These are flat, wood
framed, supported by pipe columns. Ornamental security fencing and gates are located under these roof areas."
The Relocation Study's analysis notes that the "shape and extent" of the flat roofed areas are determined by their
current location. The Study further states, "because of their limited architectural character and the high probability
that their configuration will not work in another location, it is recommended that this portion of the structure be
demolished." (ld.) The feasibility of moving the south ticket gates to some other location was also investigated
167
and in a letter to the applicant dated AprilS, 2007 from Holmes Culley, consulting structural engineers, which
reached the conclusion that relocation of the south ticket gates was infeasible due to the structure's current
deteriorated and structurally unsound condition.
The form of the south ticket gate structure is based on its function, which is to limit or control access.
Because of this function/design and its length, adaptive reuse, and relocation options are limited. There is no site
within or adjacent to the Paddock Gardens area that can accommodate the south ticket gates while retaining other
contributing resources (i.e., the Walking Circle) and achieving the project goals that include integration of the
new retail/commercial/entettainment component with the existing Paddock Gardens area and Racetrack
structures. (Id.)
Other potential locations for the south ticket gate structure would be far removed from the contributing
features of the Historic District. Since the structure is not a building form, but designed for highly specialized
functions (barrier and access control), there is limited functional reuse potential for the structure. Relocation out
of the Paddock Gardens area would remove the historic relationship of the structure relative to other contributing
Historic District resources in terms of location and setting. The design and materials of the south ticket gate
structure could be retained if the structure were moved, but as an artifact it would be impractical to maintain,
especially because of its limited architectural character and limited reuse potential. In order to adapt the structure
to a new use, its features (long flat-roofed wings containing security gates) would require major alterations to its
form, thus negatively impacting the design and materials of the structure. As the Relocation Study notes, the
structure is constructed of stucco and wood with limited architectural character and, as such, it does not possess
any significant level of workmanship. Without any purpose and separated from other contributing resources, the
south ticket gate structure would become an artifact with limited feeling and association since it would be
removed and distanced from its historic setting, and its association with the other contributing resources would no
longer exist. No new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental
impacts would occur as a result of demolition of the south ticket gate structure. Impacts would be the same as
under the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
The reconfiguration of a portion of the Paddock Gardens and relocation of the Saddling Barn and the
south ticket gates will not result in the loss of the ability of the Paddock Gardens to convey the historic and
current pre- and post-race pageantry and promenade of horses. That the path of travel of the horses is somewhat
changed does not create false historicity; the history of the promenade is one that has undergone periodic
adjustments to the path of travel to accommodate operational and structural changes. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(a), MM 4.4-2(b), and MM 4.4-2(c) would reduce the
potential impact of the proposed Project to the Saddling Barn by ensuring detailed recordation of the Saddling
Barn, construction of an interpretive display that would discuss the Saddling Barn within the context of the
evolution of the Paddock Gardens, and incorporation of building elements into an interpretive display and into the
Saddling Barn, all of which would collectively reduce the loss of information important in history. However,
these mitigation measures would not reduce the adverse effect associated with the loss of the 1948 Jockeys' Room
to a less-than-significant level. Because no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact
associated with the loss, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(d) and MM 4.4-2(e) would reduce the potential impact
to the south ticket gates by ensuring detailed recordation of the structure and ensuring that an interpretive display
would discuss the south ticket gates within the context of the evolution of Santa Anita Park, which would
collectively reduce the loss of information important in history. Additionally, mitigation measure MM 4.4-2(1)
would require the consideration of ways to incorporate elements of the south ticket gates into the proposed design,
which could preserve portions of the structure. However, these mitigation measures would not reduce the adverse
effect associated with the loss of the structure to a less-than-significant level (even with adaptive reuse of portions
of the ticket gates), particularly because implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-2(1) requires only that
design options are considered. Because no additional feasible mitigation is available to reduce the impact
168
associated with the loss of the south ticket gates, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 4.4-61.)
The proposed expansion of the Paddock Gardens has historic precedent. The original 1934 plan was
expanded in 1938 with the addition of garden area and the large Kingsbury Fountain and the Santa Anita Park
Historic District would retain its historic and architectural integrity. One of the two contributing "sites" included
in the Historic District, the Paddock Area, would undergo some alterations, but the changes (addition of
landscape, placement of Saddling Barn in 1934 location) would maintain the historic character of the area. The
east ticket gates and the Receiving Barn, both buildings in the Paddock Area, will not be impacted. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts: The geographic context for impacts relating to the loss of individual historic
resources is the City, which represents all cumulative growth within the City, as represented by full
implementation of the General Plan. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87.) Cumulative development in the City could
result in the substantial adverse modification or destruction of historic buildings, which could contribute to the
erosion of the historic and architectural fabric of the City. However, it is anticipated that future development in
the City that could potentially affect historic resources or structures will be subject to the requirements of CEQA
and other applicable legal requirements, and that the impacts of cumulative development on historic resources
will be mitigated to the extent feasible, which could include compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
standards and guidelines and consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. However, it would be
speculative to anticipate when, or if, such development would occur and whether any, or all, impacts to historic
resources could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
standards and guidelines is optional, not mandatory, and, further, the City does not have a Historic Preservation
Ordinance or another discretionary mechanism to require that impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant
level. (Jd) Given the decreasing number of historic resources present within the City, and even within the greater
Los Angeles area due to ongoing development and urbanization, cumulative impacts on historic resources as a
result of future development throughout the City is expected to be significant. (ld.)
Implementation of the proposed Project would involve the relocation and at least partial demolitions of
two contributing resources to the Santa Anita Park Historic District-the Saddling Barn and the south ticket
gates-both of which are listed on the CRHR and are eligible for listing on the NRHP; while the loss of these
resources is considered to be significant, it would not result in the diminishment of the significance of the Historic
District or in the removal from eligibility on the NRHP or from listing in the CRHR. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.4-87;
Final EIR AEA at pp. 16-20.) However, while project related mitigation measures would reduce the significance
of the cumulative impact, and it is anticipated that other projects within the City would enact mitigation to reduce
the impacts to historic resources in accordance with CEQA, impacts cannot be guaranteed to be reduced to a less-
than-significant level, particularly if the structures are demolished. Therefore, the proposed Project is
cumulatively considerable and would be significant and unavoidable. (ld)
D. Noise
Impact: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? In specific,
would the proposed Project generate traffic that would contribute to the exposure of persons off site to noise
levels in excess of established standards of the City of Arcadia? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-46; Final EIR AEA at
pp. 25-28, Impact 4.9-5.)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would generate traffic that would contribute to the exposure of
persons off site to noise levels in excess of established standards of the City of Arcadia. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures: It was determined that no feasible mitigation exists to reduce this significant and
unavoidable impact.
169
Explanation: The proposed Project would result in increased traffic levels in the project vicinity. (new Draft
EIR at p. 4.9-47.) Noise levels would be increased where noise levels are currently at the 65 dBA CNEL noise
limit for residential and hospital land uses, as well as the 70 dBA CNEL exterior noise guideline for commercial
uses. (Id.) Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic) of the new Draft EIR would
improve traffic flow which would reduce roadway noise, however, these measures would not reduce the impact to
a level below significant. In addition, the pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, landscaping and pedestrian
connections would also encourage more people to walk to the Project Site instead of driving, however, no
reduction in the vehicle trip generation rate was taken for any of these measures which would reduce the noise
level. Construction of noise barriers along impacted roadways would reduce traffic related noise, but would
conflict with the general objectives of the City with respect to protecting views of the Grandstand and protecting
the character of residential neighorhoods, and promoting pedestrian-orientated environments. Providing sound-
proofing and noise insulation to owners and occupants of buildings along traffic impacted roadways would affect
several hundred single- and multi-family properties; in many cases, this would require occupants to vacate their
premises for the duration of the upgrade. In addition, new noise absorption structures would visually alter the
character of various residential neighborhoods and would still not reduce exterior noise levels due to traffic. (Id. at
4.9-53) Therefore, as there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significance of this impact, it would
remain significant and unavoidable.
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would not result in new significant environmental
impacts or a substantial increase in environmental impacts with respect to operational noise levels, beyond those
described in the new Draft EIR. The AEA projects that, based on the reduction of square footage under the AEA
Modifications, daily retail trips would be reduced by approximately 0.9 percent, while the reduction in screens
and seats under the AEA Modifications would reduce the daily cinema/theater trips by approximately 0.8 percent,
representing a total reduction of less than two percent in daily trips. Nonetheless, roadway noise levels would not
be substantially reduced from that evaluated in the new Draft EIR. Even with a 2 percent reduction in vehicle trips
due to the potential project modifications, noise levels on the roadway segment of Centennial Way between
Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East would still increase by 5.1 dBA, which would exceed the 5
dBA significance standard. Therefore, while the AEA Modifications would result in a decrease in roadway noise
levels, the reduction in noise levels would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. No new
significant environmental impacts or substantial increase in environmental impacts would occur with respect to
operational noise levels. Impacts would be similar to the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
Cumulative Impacts: Substantial permanent increases in noise would occur primarily as a result of
increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and other projects within the study area.
Cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project
to the future cumulative base traffic volumes in the Project vicinity. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-84.) The noise
levels associated with existing traffic volumes near the surrounding sensitive noise receptors for cumulative base
traffic volumes without the Project, cumulative traffic volumes with .the Project, and the contribution of traffic
noise generated by the proposed Project during the weekday (race day) and Saturday (race day) are identified in
Table 4.9-19 and Table 4.9-20 of the Draftthe new Draft EIR, respectively. (Id.)
Cumulative development including the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by no more
than 4.8 dBA CNEL at any of the roadway segments on weekdays. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-92.) The 4.8 dBA
increase would occur along Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East as
shown in Table 4.9-19 (Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts-Weekday [Race Day]) of the new Draft
EIR, the predicted ambient noise level without the proposed Project would be 56.1 dBA CNEL, and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in an ambient noise level of 60.9 dBA CNEL for a difference
of 4.8 dBA. The with project ambient noise level of 60.9 is below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive
land use. As such, the cumulative increase in ambient noise level of 4.8 dBA would be below the 5 dBA
significance threshold for areas where a proposed project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards
for noise sensitive land uses such as residential and hospitals on weekdays. Because the cumulative contribution
of the Project to the future weekday roadway noise level at the affected intersection would not exceed the
170
incremental threshold established for this analysis, the contribution would not be considerable. Consequently, the
cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant. (Id.)
On Saturdays, cumulative development would increase local noise levels by no more than 2.2 dBA except
for the roadway segment of Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East, where
the estimated increase is 5.9 dBA. The predicted roadway noise levels without the proposed Project would be 54.0
dBA CNEL, while implementation of the proposed Project would result in a predicted ambient noise levels of
59.9 dBA CNEL. The with Project ambient noise level of 59.9 is below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise
sensitive land use; however, the 5.9 dBA increase exceeds the 5 dBA threshold for areas where a proposed
Project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards for noise sensitive land uses such as residential and
hospitals. Construction of noise barriers along impacted roadways would reduce traffic related noise, but would
conflict with the general objectives of the City with respect to protecting views of the Grandstand and protecting
the character of residential neighorhoods, and promoting pedestrian-orientated environments. Providing sound-
proofing and noise insulation to owners and occupants of buildings along traffic impacted roadways would affect
several hundred single- and multi-family properties; in many cases, this would require occupants to vacate their
premises for the duration of the upgrade. In addition, new noise absorption structures would visually alter the
character of various residential neighborhoods and would still not reduce exterior noise levels due to traffic. (Id. at
4.9-53) Therefore, as there are no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant, the
cumulative impact would be significant and the cumulative contribution to the impact would be cumulatively
considerable. Consequently, the cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable.
(Id.)
Impact: Would the Project result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration
or ground-borne noise levels? In specific, would construction activities associated with the proposed Project
expose race horses residing on site to excessive ground-borne vibration? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-54, Impact 4.9-
9.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that substantially lessen,
but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with implementation of the proposed
Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would expose race horses residing on site to
excessive ground-borne vibration. (Id.; see also Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-28.) This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Implementation of MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-1(b) would reduce this impact, but not to a less-
than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b). (MMRP at pp. 3-77-78.)
Explanation: During construction of the proposed Project, the horse stables associated with Santa Anita Park
would be impacted by ground-borne vibration levels. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-61.) Vibration levels could reach
approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of the construction activities. The existing horse stables, which are located
adjacent to the area where the majority of structural development would occur within the Specific Plan. Area,
could experience vibration levels of up to 75 VdB. This vibration level is approximately 20 VdB above the
threshold of significance for horses, which is approximately 55 VdB. The existing Gate 8 entrance from Baldwin
Avenue to the Specific Plan Area and to Westfield Santa Anita would be improved, as previously described,
which would require the demolition of all or part of four stable buildings: Stables 124 and 135 ( horse bam) and
buildings 64 and 64 A (grooms quarters/tack rooms). Stables and grooms quarters located adjacent to these
buildings and the reconfigured ring road could experience vibration levels of up to 87 VdB. This vibration level is
above the threshold of significance for horses. These factors, when combined with the subjective nature of each
individual horse, may evoke a startle effect for horses residing on site. (Id.)
Construction is anticipated to require 18 months, and would involve all or portions of the Specific Plan
Area concurrently. Thus, construction activities (excavation, grading, construction) are likely to occur over at
least one racing season, and likely two. As most of the stables are occupied during racing season, moving the
horses away from anyone particular construction area may not be possible. Installing sound attenuation devices
(e.g., temporary sound walls, other shielding devices) would be required, and would be used, as feasible, to shield
171
the horses; however, the only measure available to reduce the construction vibration impact to horses to a less-
than-significant level would be the removal of the horses currently stabled at the Racetrack during the
construction period. Howevcr, adequate space at other horse facilities/parks is not available for the approximately
1,600 horses that are stabled at the Racetrack during the racing season, and, more importantly, there is no location
that can house all the existing horses and still provide feasible access to the Santa Anita Park during racing
season. Consequently, this mitigation measure is not feasible. Mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-1(b)
would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level; therefore, this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable. (ld. at 4.9-61-62.)
AEA Modifications: Construction-related noise and vibration impacts that would potentially adversely
affect grooms and horses associated with Santa Anita Park would occur under both the Project as now proposed
with the AEA Modifications and as previously analyzed in the new Draft EIR without them. Because the
cinema/theater building, the retail building, and the West Parking Garage would be located farther away from the
stables under the AEA Modifications, construction noise and groundborne vibration impacts would be reduced for
both grooms and horses. Additionally, while the support pylons associated with the West Parking Garage and the
Wash cover would be at slightly different depths than that evaluated in the new Draft EIR, the construction
techniques associated with placement of the pylons would be the same as that evaluated in the new Draft EIR. As
such, the AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with
respect to construction-related noise and vibration impacts than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft
EIR. Impacts would be lessened by the AEA Modifications due to a reduction of overall square footage and the
fact that the Saddling Barn would be retained (in large part), rather than demolished. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-
28.).
Cumulative Impacts: With regard to construction vibration impacts on the horses stabled at the site, the
construction of the Project itself would create a significant impact. (ld. at p. 4.9-83.) However, for a cumulative
effect to exist, additional construction would have to take place in close proximity to the stabled horses. (ld. at pp.
4.9-93-94.) The only other construction that is expected to take place in the vicinity of the Project Site would be
the Westfield Santa Anita expansion. Due to the location of the Westfield Santa Anita project site, construction
could take place where its vibration impacts could be noticeable to the horses. Consequently, the cumulative
vibration impact on horses from the two projects could be significant. There is no available mitigation to reduce
this impact to a less-than-significant level. As the construction activities associated with the proposed Project
alone would impose a significant vibration impact to the horses that could combine with the effects of cumulative
development, the proposed Project's contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the
cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
Impact: Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without the Project? In specific, would operation of the proposed Project generate
increased local traffic volumes that would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
proposed Project vicinity during both weekday and weekend racing days, as established by Performance Standard
44 in the City of Arcadia's General Plan? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-46; Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-28, Impact 4.9-
12.)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would generate increased local traffic volumes that would cause a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity during both weekday and weekend
racing days, as established by Performance Standard 44 in the City's General Plan. Because no feasible
mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this impact would be considered
significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
Mitigation Measures: It was determined that no feasible mitigation exists to reduce this significant and
unavoidable impact.
Explanation: The increase in traffic resulting from implementation of the proposed Project would increase the
ambient noise levels at sensitive off-site locations in the Project vicinity. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-63.) Table 4.9-
16 of the new Draft EIR identifies the changes in future noise levels along the study area roadway segments in the
172
o
Project vicinity, and identifics the land uses along those roadways (e.g., residential uses, commercial, or hospitals)
on a weekday race day. Further, all future roadway analysis assumed completion of roadway improvement
measures required as part of traffic mitigation measures. A difference of 3.0 dBA between 24-hour noise levels is
a barely perceptible increase to most people. A 5.0 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA
would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Thus, as discussed in sub-Section 4.9.3 under Thresholds of
Significance the new Draft EIR and in accordance with Performance Standard 44 of the City's General Plan, the
E[R assumed that an increase of 5.0 dBA or greater over ambient noise levels is substantial and significant.
FurthernlOre, the new Draft EIR assumes that an increase in noise levels of3.0 dBA or greater over ambient noise
levels is substantial and significant if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise
level standard at sensitive land uses or the 70 dBA CNEL guideline established for commercial uses, while any
increase in noise level below 3.0 dBA is not considered perceptible and, thus, not significant. Further, the
jurisdictions outside of the City have not established significance thresholds for increases in ambient noise levels
and exempt roadway noise from applicable standards; therefore, for the purposes of this analysis of permanent
increases in ambient noise levels, the significance thresholds established for the City shall apply to increases in
roadway noise levels in jurisdictions outside of Arcadia. (new Draft E[R at pp. 4.9-63-64.)
As shown in Table 4.9-16 of the new Draft EIR, existing roadway noise levels range from 55.7 dBA to
72.9 dBA along City streets and up to 79.2 dBA CNEL along [-210. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-78.) For two
roadways analyzed, future noise levels with the proposed Project decreased from existing levels; these roadways
are San Gabriel Boulevard, between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road, where existing noise levels are 67.1 dBA
CNEL and future levels would decrease by -0.4 dBA to 66.7 dBA CNEL; and Michillinda A venue, between
Foothill Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard, where existing noise levels are 67.7 dBA CNEL and future levels
would decrease by -1.2 dBA to 66.5 dBA CNEL. (Id.) Implementation of the proposed Project would increase
local noise levels by no more than 2.4 dBA CNEL at all study-area roadway segments on a weekday race day,
except for Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East. The existing noise levels
at Centennial Way are 55.7 dBA CNEL; future noise levels with the proposed Project would increase by 5.2 dBA
to 60.9 dBA CNEL. An increase of 3.0 dBA or greater would only be significant if the increase resulted in an
ambient noise level at or above the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard for noise sensitive uses. After
project implementation, the ambient noise level along the Centennial Way roadway segment would be 60.9 dBA,
below the City standard for noise sensitive uses. (Id.)
However, the increase from 55.7 dBA CNEL to 60.9 dBA CNEL results in an ambient noise level
increase above 5.0 dBA. Any increase of 5.0 dBA or greater would be significant in areas where the proposed
Project's noise levels remain below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive uses and the 70 dBA CNEL
guideline for non-sensitive uses. As future roadway noise levels would increase from 55.7 dBA CNEL by
5.2 dBA to 60.9 dBA CNEL for the roadway segment of Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and
Huntington Drive East, this would not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard; however, the increase in
noise levels would be over the 5.0 dBA significance threshold. Further, there are no feasible mitigation measures
that would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Therefore, this impact would be significant and
unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available. (Id.)
Table 4.9-17 of the new Draft EIR identifies the changes in future noise levels along the study-area
roadway segments in the Project vicinity, and identifies the land uses along those roadways (e.g. residential uses,
schools, or hospitals) on a Saturday. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-69.) Implementation of the proposed Project would
increase local noise levels by a maximum of 2.5 dBA CNEL at all study-area roadway segments that meet or
exceed the 65.0 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive uses and the 70.0 dBA CNEL noise standard for non-
sensitive uses, as established in Performance Standard 44 of the General Plan. The increase for any roadway
segment that is already above the 65.0 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive uses and the 70.0 dBA CNEL
noise standard for non-sensitive uses is below the significance threshold of 3.0 dBA. Table 4.9-17 of the new
Draft EIR also shows that roadway segments that are below the 65.0 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive uses
and the 70.0 dBA CNEL noisc standard for non-sensitive uses, would experience a maximum increase in local
noise levels of 3.4 dBA, except for Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East.
173
The existing noise level at Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East segment
is 53.1 dBA CNEL; future noise levels with the proposed Project would increase by 6.6 dBA to 59.7 dBA CNEL.
Any increase of 5.0 dBA or greater would be significant in areas where the proposed Project's noise levels remain
below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive uses and the 70 dBA CNEL guideline for non-sensitive
uses. As future roadway noise levels would be 59.7 dBA CNEL for the roadway segment of Centennial Way
between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East, this would not exceed the 65 dBA CNEL noise level
standard; however, the increase in noise levels would be over the 5.0 dBA significance threshold.
Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.13 (Transportationffraffic) of the new Draft EIR would
improve traffic flow which would reduce roadway noise, however, these measures would not reduce the impact to
a level below significant. In addition, the pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, landscaping and pedestrian
connections would also encourage more people to walk to the Project Site instead of driving, however, no
reduction in the vehicle trip generation rate was taken for any of these measures which would reduce the noise
level. Construction of noise barriers along impacted roadways would reduce traffic related noise, but would
conflict with the general objectives of the City with respect to protecting views of the Grandstand and protecting
the character of residential neighorhoods, and promoting pedestrian-orientated environments. Providing sound-
proofing and noise insulation to owners and occupants of buildings along traffic impacted roadways would affect
several hundred single- and multi-family properties; in many cases, this would require occupants to vacate their
premises for the duration of the upgrade. In addition, new noise absorption structures would visually alter the
character of various residential neighborhoods and would still not reduce exterior noise levels due to traffic. (ld. at
4.9-53) Therefore, as there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significance of this impact, it would
remain significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: The AEA Modifications would not result in new significant environmental impacts
or a substantial increase in environmental impacts with respect to operational noise levels, beyond those described
in the new Draft EIR. The AEA projects that, based on the reduction of square footage under the AEA
Modifications, daily retail trips would be reduced by approximately 0.9 percent, while the reduction in screens
and seats under the AEA Modifications would reduce the daily cinema/theater trips by approximately 0.8 percent,
representing a total reduction of less than two percent in daily trips. Nonetheless, roadway noise levels would not
be substantially reduced from that evaluated in the new Draft EIR. Even with a 2 percent reduction in vehicle trips
due to the potential project modifications, noise levels on the roadway segment of Centennial Way between
Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East would still increase by 5.1 dBA, which would exceed the 5
dBA significance standard. Therefore, while the AEA Modifications would result in a decrease in roadway noise
levels, the reduction in noise levels would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. No new
significant environmental impacts or substantial increase in environmental impacts would occur with respect to
operational noise levels. Impacts would be similar to the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR. (ld.)
Also, the relocated Saddling Barn would not affect the number of vehicle trips, as operation of the Saddling Barn
does not generate individual trips. Impacts would be similar to the project conditions evaluated in the new Draft
EIR. (Id.)
Cumulative Impacts: Substantial permanent increases in noise would occur primarily as a result of
increased traffic on local roadways due to the proposed Project and other projects within the study area.
Cumulative traffic-generated noise impacts have been assessed based on the contribution of the proposed Project
to the future cumulative basc traffic volumes in the Project vicinity. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-84.) The noise
levels associated with existing traffic volumes near the surrounding sensitive noise receptors for cumulative base
traffic volumes without the Project, cumulative traffic volumes with the Project, and the contribution of traffic
noise generated by the proposed Project during the weekday (race day) and Saturday (race day) are identified in
Table 4.9-19 and Table 4.9-20 of the new Draft EIR, respectively. (Jd.)
Cumulative development including the proposed Project would increase local noise levels by no more
than 4.8 dBA CNEL at any of the roadway segments on weekdays. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-92.) The 4.8 dBA
increase would occur along Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East: as
shown in Table 4.9-19 (Cumulative Project Roadway Noise Impacts-Weekday [Race Day]) of the new Draft
174
EIR, the predicted ambient noise level without the proposed Project would be 56.1 dBA CNEL, and
implementation of the proposed Project would result in an ambient noise level of 60.9 dBA CNEL for a difference
of 4.8 dBA. The with project ambient noise level of 60.9 is below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise sensitive
land use. As such, the cumulative increase in ambient noise level of 4.8 dBA would be below the 5 dBA
significance threshold for areas where a proposed project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards
for noise sensitive land uses such as residential and hospitals on weekdays. Because the cumulative contribution
of the Project to the future weekday roadway noise level at the affected intersection would not exceed the
incremental threshold established for this analysis, the contribution would not be considerable. Consequently, the
cumulative impact of the Project would be less than significant. (Id)
On Saturdays, cumulative development would increase local noise levels by no more than 2.2 dBA except
for the roadway segment of Centennial Way between Huntington Drive West and Huntington Drive East, where
the estimated increase in 5.9 dBA. The predicted roadway noise levels without the proposed Project would be
54.0 dBA CNEL, while implementation of the proposed Project would result in a predicted ambient noise levels
of 59.9 dBA CNEL. The with project ambient noise level of 59.9 is below the 65 dBA CNEL standard for noise
sensitive land use; however, the 5.9 dBA increase exceeds the 5 dBA threshold for areas where a proposed
Project's noise levels remain below the City's noise standards for noise sensitive land uses such as residential and
hospitals. As the 5.9 dBA increase is above the 5.0 dBA threshold. Construction of noise barriers along impacted
roadways would reduce traffic related noise, but would conflict with the general objectives of the City with
respect to protecting views of the Grandstand and protecting the character of residential neighorhoods, and
promoting pedestrian-orientated environments. Providing sound-proofing and noise insulation to owners arid
occupants of buildings along traffic impacted roadways would affect several hundred single- and multi-family
properties; in many cases, this would require occupants to vacate their premises for the duration of the upgrade.
In addition, new noise absorption structures would visually alter the character of various residential
neighborhoods and would still not reduce exterior noise levels due to traffic. (Id. at 4.9-53) Therefore, as there
are no feasible mitigation to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant, the cumulative impact would be
significant and the cumulative contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable. Consequently, the
cumulative impact of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? In specific, would construction activities associated
with the proposed Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels such that
horses located on site would be exposed to excessive noise? (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.9-74, 92, Impact 4.9-15.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result
in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels such that horses located on site would be
exposed to excessive noise. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.9-75.) This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b) would reduce this impact, but not to a
less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.9-I(a) and MM 4.9-I(b). (MMRP at p. 3-88.)
Explanation: The horse stables that are currently within the Specific Plan Area are located adjacent to
construction activity that would occur under implementation of the proposed Project. (Id.) Noise levels could
exceed 80 dBA Leq at these stables during construction activities (i.e., at 50 feet with mufflers). The existing
ambient noise level within the portion of the Specific Plan Area where the horse stables are located is 55.7 dBA
Leq (location No. 12); construction activities associated with the proposed Project, therefore, could result in an
increase in noise levels of approximately 24.3 dBA Leq at the horse stables. Furthermore, the construction
activities would include sudden or impulsive noise sources, including "back-up" beepers for on-site heavy
equipment that are required to protect human heath and safety. The "back-up" beepers would also emit
frequencies that are not typical of the existing ambient condition. Noise generated from construction activity and
175
frequency tones generated from heavy equipment "back-up" beepers could produce a sound or sound frequency
that may potentially startle a horse. (Id. at pp. 4.9-75-76.) Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-I(a)
would require construction BMPs to be implemented during construction at the Specific Plan Area to reduce
construction noise levels. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-I(b) would require the
locating of construction staging areas and earthmoving equipment as far away from noise-sensitive land uses as
possible. Although these noise attenuation measures would reduce the construction noise levels of the proposed
Project, a temporary increase in ambient noise levels of over 3 dBA would still occur at the horse stables.
Transferring the horses to an off-site facility for the duration of construction at the Specific Plan Area is not
feasible because there are no facilities available that could accommodate all of the horses and still provide
convenient access to the track for practice and exercise, or for racing days. Consequently, this impact would be
significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: Construction-related noise and vibration impacts that would potentially adversely
affect grooms and horses associated with Santa Anita Park would occur under both the Project as now proposed
with the AEA Modifications and as previously analyzed in the new Draft EIR without them. Because the
cinema/theater building, the retail building, and the West Parking Garage would be located farther away from the
stables under the AEA Modifications, construction noise and groundborne vibration impacts would be reduced for
both grooms and horses. Additionally, while the support pylons associated with the West Parking Garage and the
Wash cover would be at slightly different depths than that evaluated in the new Draft EIR, the construction
techniques associated with placement of the pylons would be the same as that evaluated in the new Draft EIR. As
such, the AEA Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts with
respect to construction-related noise and vibration impacts than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft
EIR. Impacts would be lessened by the AEA Modifications due to a reduction of overall square footage and the
fact that the Saddling Barn would be retained (in large part), rather than demolished. (Final EIR AEA at pp. 25-
28.).
Cumulative Impacts: With regard to construction noise impacts on the horses stabled at the site, the
construction of the Project it:;elf would create a significant impact. (ld. at p. 4.9-93.) However, for a cumulative
effect to exist, additional construction would have to take place in close proximity to the stabled horses. (Id.. at pp.
4.9-93-94.) The only other construction that is expected to take place in the vicinity of the Project Site would be
the Westfield Santa Anita expansion. Due to the location of the Westfield Santa Anita project site, construction
could take place where its noise impacts could be noticeable to the horses. Consequently, the cumulative noise
impact on horses from the two projects could be significant. There is no available mitigation to reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level. As the construction activities associated with the proposed Project alone would
impose a significant noise impact to the horses that could combine with the effects of cumulative development,
the proposed Project's contribution to the impact would be cumulatively considerable; therefore, the cumulative
impact of the Project would be significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
E. Traffic and Transportation
Impact: Would the Project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-
to-capacity ratio, or congestion at intersections)? In specific, would operation of the proposed Project result in
additional vehicular trips that would potentially result in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service
on intersections located outside the City, partially outside the City, or having concurrent jurisdiction with
Caltrans? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-69, 106, Impact 4.13-2.)
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the Project. Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular trips that
would potentially result in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service on intersections located
outside the City, partially outside the City, or having concurrent jurisdiction with Caltrans. (new Draft EIR at p.
4.13-85.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with mitigation measures
176
MM 4.13-I(a), MM 4.13-1(<:), MM 4.13-I(q), MM 4.13-I(r), MM 4.13-I(s), and MM 4. 13-I(t) would reduce this
impact to a less-than-signilicant level. However, due to the locations of these intersections, in order to be
implemented, several of these mitigation measures must be permitted by a jurisdiction other than the City. Ifsuch
permission is not given, the significant traffic impact addressed by each mitigation measure would remain and
impacts would, therefore, be significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.13-I(a), MM 4.13-I(c), MM 4.13-I(q), MM 4.13-I(r), MM 4.13-I(s), and
MM4.13-I(t)
Explanation: The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts at a total of eighteen locations
during the weekday a.m. or p.m. peak hours, and a total of twelve locations during the Saturday peak hour. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-85.) For both the weekday and Saturday peak periods combined, a total of twenty of the
forty-two intersections would be significantly impacted by the Project. Six of these intersections are located
outside the City, partially outside the City, or have concurrent jurisdiction with Caltrans. Each of these six
intersections is expected to result in a potentially significant impact. These include:
. Baldwin A venue and 1-210 Eastbound Ramps (p.m. and Saturday) (partially controlled by Caltrans)
. Rosemead Boulevard CMP arterial monitoring station at Huntington Drive (p.m. and Saturday) (County
of Los Angeles)
. Colorado Boulevard and Michillinda Avenue (p.m.) (County of Los Angeles)
. Duarte Road at Rosemead Boulevard (p.m. and Saturday)(County of Los Angeles)
. Huntington Drive and San Gabriel Boulevard (Saturday) (County of Los Angeles and San Marino)
. Huntington Drive and Sierra Madre Boulevard (p.m.) (San Marino). (Id.)
Table 4.13-12 of the new Draft EIR provides mitigation measures for each of these intersections.
Compliance with mitigation measures MM 4.13-I(a), MM 4.13-I(c), MM 4.13-I(q), MM 4.13-I(r),
MM 4.13-I(s), and MM 4.13-I(t) would reduce this impact to a less-than-signilicant level. However, due to the
locations of these intersections, in order to be implemented, these mitigation measures must be permitted by a
jurisdiction other than the City. If such permission is not given, then the signilicant traffic impact addressed by
each mitigation measure would remain and impacts would, therefore, be significant and unavoidable. (Id.) Even
though these mitigation measures would mitigate the applicable significant impacts, it is infeasible to implement
these mitigation measures since they are not under the City's full control. The City of Arcadia would cooperate
with the other jurisdictions involved with the implementation of these mitigation measures.
AEA Modifications: As explained in Section III.! above (Traffic) of these Findings, the AEA
Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
operational traffic. Impacts would be less than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR due to a
reduction of overall square footage and the corresponding reduction in project-related vehicle trips. (Final EIR
AEA at pp. 29-30.)
Cumulative Imoacts: Six of the 20 affected intersections either are not located exclusively within the City
or the City has partial control of the intersection. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-124.) Compliance with mitigation
measures MM 4.13-I(a), MM 4.13-I(c), MM 4.13-1(q), MM 4.13-1(r), MM 4.13-I(s), and MM 4.13-1(t) would
reduce impacts to these six intersections to a less-than-significant level. However, the mitigation measures
associated with these six intersections may not be enforceable since the City does not have control over all the
intersections with potentially significant impacts. Therefore, because the Project's contribution to substantial
increases in traffic in relation to the existing traffic local street system at these six locations would be
cumulatively considerable, this cumulative project impact would be signilicant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume-to-capacity ratio, or congestion at intersections)? In specific, would operation of the proposed Project
result in impacts related to neighborhood traffic in the adjacent residential areas to the Specific Plan Area? (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-88, Impact 4.13-4.)
177
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project that
substantially lessen, but do not completely avoid, the significant environmental effect associated with
implementation of the Project. Operation of the proposed Project could result in impacts related to neighborhood
traffic in the adjacent residential areas to the Specific Plan Area. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-88.) Compliance with
mitigation measures MM 4.13 4(a), MM 4.13 4(b), and PR 4.13A would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-
significant level. This impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.13 4(a), MM 4.13 4(b)
Explanation: The significance of neighborhood intrusion impacts related to excess vehicle traffic is usually
determined on a case-by-case basis because each residential street has unique characteristics. (new Draft EIR at p.
4.13-88.) The City has a goal to maintain LOS C or better on local residential streets during non-racing season,
however LOS C is not defined in terms of local residential streets. The ability to determine LOS on a local street
is very difficult for several reasons. Most importantly, each residential street is unique in character. Local streets
vary considerably in terms of street width, multi-family versus single family, density, presence of schools, day
care, senior housing, proximity to major streets and other factors. A level of traffic which may be perceived as too
much on one residential street may be acceptable on another. Furthermore, a lane of traffic, carrying the
traditional LOS C volume on an arterial street, would be far too much traffic for most residential streets. Thus, it
is not feasible or desirable to measure "level of service" on the City's residential streets. Instead, the traffic
volume and character of each street, and the opinions of the residents on the streets, must be taken into account
when assessing local street traffic conditions and potential impacts. The analysis that is outlined below addresses
potential impacts on local residential streets based on techniques applied successfully in several cities in southern
California. Those cities offer recommendations to guide the determination of significance of neighborhood
intrusion impacts. (Id.)
According to guidelines used for other major projects in Southern California, a project would create a
significant neighborhood intrusion impact if project traffic increases the ADT volume on a local residential street
in an amount equal to or greater than the following:
. ADT increase ~ 120 trips if Final ADT* < 1,000
. ADT increase ~ 12 percent over existing traffic volume if final ADT* ~ 1,000 < 2,000
. ADT increase ~ 10 percent over existing traffic volume if final ADT* ~ 2,000 and < 3,000
. ADT increase ~ 8 percent over existing traffic volume if final ADT* ~ 3,000
* "Final ADT" is defined as total projected future daily volume including project, ambient, and related project
growth. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-89.)
Using the aforementioned guidelines, it can be concluded that the number of project trips required to
create a potential impact stalts at 120 project trips and increases as a function of the traffic volumes on a local
residential street. The recommended ADT increase per existing traffic conditions has been incorporated into the
significance thresholds in the new Draft EIR. This analysis has used a conservative level (i.e., lowest level) of 120
daily project trips as the screcning criteria for identifying neighborhoods with potentially significant impacts. The
actual determination of significant impact would be calculated based on the condition of the individual street in
question. (Id.)
The residential street analysis evaluated twcnty key locations for potential residential street impacts. The
twenty locations were chosen based on knowledge of local traffic patterns, the proximity of the streets to the
arterial street system and proximity to the Project area, and the streets that may potentially serve as cut through
routcs since they parallel or intersect key arterial roadways that are projected to carry project traffic. Average
Daily Traffic counts were conducted on each of the twenty locations over a three-day period, Thursday, Friday
and Saturday. (/d.)
Nine of the twenty locations would not be impacted since the adjacent arterial routes are projected to
operate at acceptable levels of service, thus no pass-through traffic intrusion would be expected. At the other
178
eleven locations, the study indicates that the thresholds for significant impact may be exceeded at four locations,
based on the criteria noted above. Those locations are Vaquero Road south of Colorado Street, Fairview Avenue
west of Sunset Boulevard, California Street between the First Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue, and Fairview
A venue west of Baldwin A venue. At those four locations, the Project traffic may exceed the threshold of
significance based on the criteria. (Id.)
The preceding analysis demonstrates that neighborhood traffic impacts could potentially occur if certain
conditions arise, including congestion on the adjacent arterial system, and project traffic along the congested
arterial route. The ability to accurately forecast neighborhood traffic impacts is beyond current traffic engineering
and planning methodologies. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-90.) Thus, neighborhood traffic impacts are speculative
and cannot be estimated with reasonable certainty. Should they occur, neighborhood traffic intrusion impacts
would require development and implementation of a neighborhood traffic management plan which would identify
measures to make local routes less attractive to through traffic, such as turn restrictions, chokers or narrowing of
street widths, diverters or semi-diverters, cul-de-sacs or street closures, stop signs and other measures approved
by the City Traffic Engineer. Because implementation of neighborhood traffic controls on one street can cause
intruding traffic to shift to other streets, an effective neighborhood traffic management plan can only be
implemented on an area-wide basis with all affected parties involved in the development of the plan, including
neighborhood residents, City Council members, planners, and traffic engineers. The City has used a neighborhood
traffic managemcnt process in the past to address these issues in consultation with all affected parties. lt is
recommended that monitoring of traffic volume commence prior to project completion to establish baseline traffic
volumes counts, and then once the Project is in operation. This would occur on potential neighborhood traffic
intrusion routes, and would include regular (annual or biannual) daily traffic counts on selected streets and at all
key locations within the potentially affected neighborhoods. Should significant increases in traffic occur, then
neighborhood traffic management techniques would be applied in consultation with all affected
individuals/neighborhoods. In addition, within one year of project occupancy, the City shall conduct a study of
traffic impacts to determine whether MM 4. I 3-4(a) has been effective in reducing impacts and/or whether more or
different measures are reasonably required to mitigate any significant impacts of the Project. (Id.). As required by
MM 4.13-4(a), the neighborhood traffic control program will include outreach to and participation by all affected
residents, with affected residents voting on the program elements and with a required 60 percent approval. The
approved program then would be submitted to the City's Traffic Advisory Committee and then to the City
Council for final approval. (MMRP, page 3-88.)
In addition, manual traffic control during racing season would be provided as part of the Project. PR
4.13A shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations, or the Project's
Specific Plan (regarding Manual Traffic Control During Racing Season). (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-105.)
Mitigation measures MM 4. I 3-4(a) and MM 4. I 3-4(b ), and PR 4.13A would reduce impacts related to
traffic in areas adjacent to the Specific Plan area, and could reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level;
however, as stated previously, the ability to accurately forecast neighborhood traffic impacts is beyond current
traffic engineering and planning methodologies. Thus, neighborhood traffic impacts cannot be estimated with
reasonable certainty. Because the extent of this impact cannot be measured with certainty, and the effectiveness of
mitigation measures MM 4. I 3-4(a), MM 4.13-4(b), and PR 4.13A can likewise not be determined with ccrtainty,
impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable in order to reflect an abundance of caution with respect
to the conclusions of this analysis. (Id.)
With the passage of Measure P, neighborhood parking impacts are expected to be even less than the
impacts analyzed in the new Draft EIR with the above-referenced mitigation measures.
AEA Modifications: As explained in Section III.I above (Traffic) of these Findings, the AEA
Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
operational traffic. Impacts would be less than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR due to a
reduction of overall square footage and the corresponding reduction in project-related vehicle trips. (Final EIR
AEA at pp. 29-30.)
179
Cumulative Imoacts: Neighborhood traffic impacts could potentially occur if certain conditions arise
including congestion on the adjacent arterial system, and project traffic along the congested arterial route. (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-125.) Project traffic increases of 120 trips that would result in ADT volume increases on
local residential streets were analyzed for corridors under observation. Several of the cumulative projects shown
in Figure 4.13-9 of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion and Mcthodist Hospital
Expansion, may contribute to congestion on the adjacent arterial system, thereby resulting in varying increases in
traffic volumes and a significant cumulative impact would result. Four locations were identified that may be
subject to potcntially significant neighborhood intrusion impacts as a result of the proposed Project. Mitigation
measures MM 4. I 3-4(a), MM 4.13-4(b), and PR 4.13A would reduce impacts related to traffic in areas adjacent to
the Specific Plan area, however, as stated previously, the ability to accurately forecast neighborhood traffic
impacts is bcyond current traffic engineering and planning methodologies. Thus, neighborhood traffic impacts are
speculative and cannot be estimated with reasonable certainty. Because the extent of this impact cannot be
measured, the effectiveness of mitigation measures MM 4. I 3-4(a), MM 4.13-4(b), and PR 4. 13A cannot be
dctermined, project related impacts could be cumulatively considerable and this cumulative impact would be
significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Impact: Would the Project exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? In specific, would the operation
of the proposed Project rcsult in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would exceed established service levels
on Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program ("CMP") freeway monitoring stations designated by
the Los Angeles County CMP? (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-91, 100, Impact 4.3-5.)
Finding: Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would exceed
established service levels on CMP freeway monitoring stations designated by the Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Program. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-91.) This is considered a potentially significant impact. Because
no feasible mitigation is availablc to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this impact would be
considered significant and unavoidable. (Id.)
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Explanation: The project is expected to add 150 or more trips during the p.m. peak hour at the two closest CMP
mainline freeway monitoring stations, located at 1-210 at Rosemead Boulevard and 1-210 west of 1-605. Thus,
these freeway locations are subject to CMP level analysis. The results of that analysis are summarized in
Tablc 4.13- I 4 (Analysis of CMP Freeway Monitoring Locations) of the new Draft EIR. In accordance with CMP
guidelines for CMP freeway monitoring stations with an increase of 150 project-related trips or more, an increase
of 0.02 or more in the Demand/Capacity ratio with a resulting LOS F is considered a significant impact. The
methodology for estimating future traffic volumes is a multi-step process. First, existing traffic conditions at CMP
freeway monitoring stations were obtained from the CMP documentation published by MT A in 2004. Included
are a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic demands, capacity, and LOS designations. Next, traffic growth estimates,
without the proposed development, were extrapolated from the 2003 CMP data set using a 0.82 yearly rate of
growth, to determine the D/C ratio and LOS. Volume added as a result of the Project was calculated using the trip .
distribution data from the traffic model used to asscss project impacts. Using that data, the traffic demand added
to the two CMP stations located at 1-210 at Rosemead Boulevard and west of 1-605 was assessed. The project
volume was then added to thc projected growth for 2009 without the Project, and divided by capacity to determine
the projected 2009 D/C ratio for a.m. and p.m. peak periods with the Project. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-92.)
As shown, the Project is expected to have the following significant CMP freeway system impacts: _--
.1-210 at Rosemead Boulevard-p.m. peak eastbound impact per CMP guidelines;
.1-210 West of I-60S-p.m. peak eastbound impact per CMP guidelines. (Id.)
The 1-210 freeway adjacent to the Project Site currently experienccs LOS deficiencies at the two CMP
freeway monitoring locations at Rosemead Boulevard and west of I-60S. (Id.) The 1-210 freeway is projected to
180
experience regional growth in traffic plus a significant project-related impact at the two closest monitoring
locations based on CMP critcria. This impact is, therefore, potentially significant. (Id.)
Thus, based on both current conditions as well as future conditions without and with the Project, the
freeway warrants improvement. Additional capacity is needed on the 1-210 freeway to provide acceptable LOS
conditions for current and future traffic volumes, which would require at least one additional lane in the
eastbound direction (the direction impacted by both regional growth and project traffic). (Id.)
The CMP states that the Project traffic impact analysis report must indicate "Cost estimates, indicating the
fair share costs to mitigate the impact of the proposed Project. If the improvement from a proposcd mitigation
measure would exceed the impacts of the Project, the TIA must indicate the proportion of total mitigation costs
which is attributable to the Project. (Id.) Final selection of mitigation measures remains at the discretion of the
lead agency" (2004 Los Angeles County CMP, Appendix B, pages B-6 and B-7 of the new Draft EIR). (new
Draft EIR at p. 4.13-93.) Widening of the freeway would be a very expensive improvement and would be
completed by Caltrans. The City, as the lead agency for this development project, has no control over major
freeway improvements. Furthermore, the Santa Anita Specific Plan project would contribute a vcry small
proportion of the total trips on the freeway, ranging from one to 5 percent of the peak hour volume at the
monitoring locations. Adding a freeway lane over a 6 mile segment approximately from the I-60S to the ramps
near Michillinda, would cost approximately $60 to $75 million depending upon the need for right-of-way,
modifications to bridge stmctures and other variables. The project "fair-share" percentage would be up to
4 percent based on project volume over total volume. Because mitigation of this impact is outside the jurisdiction
of the City, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available.
(Id.)
AEA Modifications: As explained in Section III.! above (Traffic) of these Findings, the AEA
Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
operational traffic. Impacts would be less than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR due to a
reduction of overall square footage and the corresponding reduction in project-related vehicle trips. (Final EIR
AEA at pp. 29-30.)
Cumulative Imoacts: By its nature, the CMP is a cumulative scenario that considers the impact of single
projects in the context of cumulative traffic demand on CMP roadways. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-108.) The CMP
defines regional project impacts on freeways as significant (in terms of its contribution to the cumulative impact)
if a project results in a minimum of 150 additional trips at a CMP monitoring station, an increase in the demand to
capacity ratio by more than 2 percent, and results in a final LOS of F. If at a CMP-monitored arterial station, the
proposed Project adds 50 or more trips, in either direction, during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak period,
further traffic analysis is required. It is possible that traffic impacts created by regional growth (including the
cumulative projects) would combine to exceed the CMP standard of significance, and, to the extent that this
occurs, a significant cumulative would be the result. (Id)
The Project and cumulative projects plus future development is expected to add 150 or more trips during
the p.m. peak hour at the two closest CMP mainline freeway monitoring stations, located at 1-210 at Rosemead
Boulevard and I-2l 0 wcst of I-60S. The 1-210 freeway adjaccnt to the Project Site currently experiences LOS
deficiencies at the two CMP monitoring locations at Rosemead Boulevard and west of I-60S. The 1-210 freeway
is projected to experience regional growth in traffic that would likely result in a significant cumulative impact.
The project would result in a significant impact at the two closest monitoring locations based on CMP criteria.
This project-related contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable. No mitigation has been identified that
would reduce this project-related impact to a less-than-significant level. Growth associated with the cumulative
projects and regional growth in general would likely result in additional and potentially significant increases in
traffic volume on these CMP roadways. The project contribution is cumulatively considerable and, since it cannot
be mitigated, is significant and unavoidable. This is considered to bc a significant and unavoidable cumulative
impact. (Id.)
181
Impact: Would the Project excced, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by
the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? In specific, would the operation
of the proposed Project result in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would exceed established service levels
on CMP arterial monitoring stations designated by the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program?
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.13-93, Impact 4.3-6.)
Finding: Operation of the proposcd Project would result in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would
exceed established service levels at a CMP arterial monitoring station designated by the Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Program. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measure MM
4.13 I(c) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.) However, due to the location of this
intersection outside the City, in order for mitigation measure MM 4.13 I(c) to be implemented the County of Los
Angeles would need to give permission. (Id.) If such permission is not given, the significant traffic impact
addressed by that mitigation measure would remain and impacts would, therefore, be significant and unavoidable.
(Id.)
Mitigation Measures: MM 4.13-I(c)
Explanation: After calculating the number of project-related trips assigned to the street network using the
TRAFFIX model, it has been" determined that the proposed Project would add 50 or more trips to one CMP
arterial monitoring station, the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive. (new Draft EIR at p.
4.13-94.) The other two CMP arterial monitoring stations located at Rosemead Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard
and Rosemead Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive would not receive 50 or more project related trips. Specifically,
the CMP arterial monitoring station located at Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive would experience an
increasc of 84 a.m. project-related trips and 370 p.m. project-related trips during the weekday. Therefore, an
analysis of the Project impacts on the intersection is required under the CMP. This intersection is shown to
experience a significant impact and has been analyzed as part of the Traffic Impact Analysis. (ld.)
The analysis shows that the Project would not add to delay in the a.m. peak hour, however, this
intersection is at LOS F and the Project would create more than a 0.04 change in V/C ratio. (Id.) Mitigation
measure MM 4.13-I(c) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. (Id.) However, due to the
location of this intersection outside the City, in order for mitigation measurc MM 4.13-I(c) to be implemented the
County of Los Angeles would need to give permission. (Id.) If such permission is not given, then the significant
traffic impact addrcssed by that mitigation measure would remain and impacts would, therefore, be significant
and unavoidable. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: As cxplained in Section III.I above (Traffic) of these Findings, the AEA
Modifications would not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts associated with
operational traffic. Impacts would be less than the project conditions analyzed in the new Draft EIR due to a
reduction of overall square footage and the corresponding reduction in project-related vehicle trips. (Final EIR
AEA at pp. 29-30.)
Cumulative Imoacts: The Project and cumulative projects plus future development is not expected to add
delay in the AM peak hour, however, the Rosemead Boulevard and Huntington Drive intersection is at LOS F and
the Project would create more than a 0.04 change in V/C ratio. Several of the cumulative projects shown in
Figure 4.13-9 (Locations of Cumulative Projects) of the new Draft EIR, including the Westfield Santa Anita
Expansion and Methodist Hospital Expansion, may contribute to delay in the A.M. peak hour, thereby resulting in
a significant cumulative impact. Mitigation measure MM 4.13-1(c) would reduce the Project-related contribution
to this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, due to thc location of this intersection outside the City, in
order for mitigation measure MM 4.13-1(c) to be implemented, the County of Los Angeles would need to give
permission. If such permission is not given, then the significant traffic impact addressed by that mitigation
measure would remain and the Project specific impact would, therefore, be significant and unavoidable. The
project contribution is cumulatively considerable and, since it cannot be mitigated, is significant and unavoidable.
This is considered to be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. (/d.)
182
F. Utilities and Service Systems
Impact: Would the Project either cumulatively or individually be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? In specific, would implementation of the
proposed Project generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted capacity of landfills serving the City of Arcadia?
(new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-26, 51, Impact 4.14-4.)
Finding: The proposed Project would contribute to insufficient permitted disposal capacity by contributing
additional solid waste to regional landfills during operational activities (throughout the life of the project).
Therefore, the proposed Project's contribution to landfill impacts would be individually and cumulatively
considerable, and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. (ld. at p. 4.14-52)
Mitigation Measures: There is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed Project could generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted
capacity of landfills serving the City. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-26.) This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this
impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. (ld.)
The proposed Project would generate up to 1,300 long-term employment positions, and based on similar
projects, the distribution of part-time to full-time would be approximately 60 percent (780) full-time and
40 percent (520) part-time. Approximately 1,200 net new employees would be associated with the commercial
entertainment portion of the proposed Project (excluding the office uses), and approximately 100 net new
employees would be associated with the Simulcast Center. The 100 employees associated with the office portion
of the Project would not be net new employees, as they would be shifted from existing (and crowded) Arcadia
Unified School District (AUSD) facilities within the City. (ld.)
The CIWMB's solid waste generation rates for employees are 25.7 pounds per day and I pound per
square foot for office uses. Given these gencration rates, the commercial retail use would be expected to generate
33,410 pounds of solid waste per day, or 6,097 tons per year (assuming that I ton equals 2,000 pounds) and the
office component would generate 250 pounds of solid waste per day, or 46 tons per year. (ld.)
At buildout (in 2009), the proposed Project would generate a total of approximately 33,660 pounds of
solid waste per day, or about 6,143 tons per year. This would represent approximately 7 percent of the total solid
waste generated by the City in 2005, which is approximately 87,347 tons per year. As previously mentioned, at
least 64 percent of the City's solid waste is hauled to the Puente Hills Landfill. It is anticipated that this landfill
would have sufficient capacity through October of 2013 (Kilgore 2005). The daily capacity of the landfill is
13,200 tons per day, 6 days a week. (ld. at p. 4.14.-27.)
The Nu-Way Live Oak Reclamation Facility, which accepted 14 percent of the City's solid waste in 2005,
has a maximum throughput of 7,500 tons/day with a closure date of January 1,2010. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-
31.) The CREF is a transformation facility and as such, does not have a capacity-related closure date. Instead, the
CREF is permitted to accept up to 1,000 tons of solid waste 'pcr day (accepts waste 5 days a week) and cannot
process more than 2,800 tons per week but can store limited quantities of waste for future processing. The CREF
currently receives 1,900 to 2,800 tons per week and is thus, operating slightly below processing capacity with the
ability to store waste for future processing but below capacity for receiving additional waste (Eaton 2006). (ld.)
EI Sobrante Landfill, which received about 5 percent of the City's solid waste in 2005, is anticipated to
have sufficient capacity until January 2030. This landfill has a daily maximum capacity at 10,000 tons and
currently receives approximately 8,000 tons per day (Godfred 2006). The permitted capacity of the Sunshine
Canyon Landfill and Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill, which combined received almost 7 percent of the City's
solid wastc, is sufficient until February 2008 and November 2019, respectivcly. (Id)
Combined, the Puente Hills Landfill, Nu-Way Live Oak Reclamation Facility, the CREF, EI Sobrante
Landfill, Sunshine Canyon Sanitary Landfill, and the Chiquita Canyon Landfill received almost 99 percent of the
183
City's solid waste in 2005. Both the ALR and the Nu-Way Live Oak Reclamation Facility are owned by Waste
Management, Inc. (Id.)
The proposed Project would result in an increase of solid waste being hauled to the six landfills discussed
above, as well as other facilities listed in Table 4.14-9 (Disposal Facilities Used by Arcadia in 2005) of the new
Draft EIR. While the EI Sobrante Landfill has remaining capacity through 2030, and the CREF does not have a
closure date, the total solid waste disposed of at these locations amounts to only 13 percent of the City's overall
solid waste. Given that the Puente Hills Landfill has capacity only until 2013, and it receives over 64 percent of
the City's solid waste, sufficient capacity may not exist to accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed
Project through 2029. Further, none of the other landfills have closure dates after 2029. The Nu-Way Live Oak
Reclamation Facility, which accounts for just over 14 percent of the City's solid waste, closes in 2010, and the
Sunshine Canyon and Chiquita Canyon Landfills close in 2008 and 2019, respectively. Given that the primary
landfills that collectively serve the City (accounting for almost 99 percent of the City's total solid waste) do not
have sufficient capacity to 2029, the proposed Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, and
no feasible mitigation measures are availablc beyond compliance with the City's recycling programs, which are
limited to holiday trees, used oil, appliances, and plastic bags. (Id. at pp. 4.14-27-28.) The City does not have
specific waste reduction and minimization programs that apply to commercial and office uses. (Id. at p. 4.14-28.)
However, the Project will include designated areas for the collection and loading of recyclables to encourage
waste reduction and minimization efforts. PR 4.14C shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state,
or federal laws or regulations, or the Project's Specific Plan. (MMRP at p. 3-116.)
Landfill capacity is a dynamic metric that is dependent upon the amount of solid waste that requires
disposal (and the effectiveness of source reduction and recycling methods), the permitted capacity of the landfill,
and the number of landfills that can accommodate solid waste. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-32.) If landfill capacity
is not available in one or some combination of the six landfills that currently accept solid waste from the City,
even if the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project is reduced through operational recycling
efforts, it is possible that other options for disposal would be available after 2029; however, without any definitive
information to support this assumption, it is considered speculative, and cannot be assumed for purposes of this
analysis. Thereforc, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are
required. (Id.)
AEA Modifications: With respect to solid waste, the reduction in square footagc under the AEA
Modifications would result in less generation of solid waste than the project without the AEA Modifications
analyzed in the new Draft E1R. It is anticipated that cumulative solil waste impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable given the uncertainty of the long-term permitted capacity of landfills, which is the same conclusion
reached in the new Draft EIR. However, no new significant environmental impacts or substantially more severe
environmental impacts would result with respect to solid waste generation as a result of the AEA Modifications.
Impacts would be less than the project without the AEA Modifications due to a reduction of overall square
footage.
Cumulative Imoact: There is some data that suggests that there is insufficient pcrmittcd disposal capacity
within the existing system serving Los Angeles County to provide for long term disposal needs; however, there is
additional capacity potentially available within Los Angeles County through the expansion of local landfills, and
outsidc of Los Angeles County through the use of a regional waste-by-rail system and remote landfills. The
regional waste-by-rail system that was finished in March 2005 will be used to transport municipal solid waste
approximately 210 miles to Mesquite Regional Landfill (MRL) via the Union Pacific Railroad main line, which
included the construction of a rail spur. The Districts' have proposed a system that would utilize disposal capacity
at the proposed Eagle Mountain Landfill (EML) in Riverside County and the MRL in Imperial County that are in
a Purchase and Sale Agreement contract as of August 2000. (new Draft EIR at 4.14-51-52.) Toward that end,
CSDLAC entered into Purchase and Sale Agreements in August 2000, on these two landfills, which are the only
two fully permitted rail haul landfills in California. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.14-61.) CSDLAC closed escrow on the
MRL in December 2002, and is currently in the planning and development process for that landfill. Due in part to
pending federal litigation, CSDLAC has not been able to close escrow on the purchase of the Eagle Mountain
184
Landfill (LACSD 2006a). (Id.) CSDLAC intends to utilize a regional waste-by-rail system to transport municipal
solid waste approximately 210 miles to MRL, using the Union Pacific Railroad mainline, which extends from the
Metropolitan Los Angeles to Glamis, California. From Glamis, a 5-mile dedicated rail spur would be built to the
site. Closing escrow on the MRL has allowed work to begin on a comprehensive master plan for the development
of the site, including the landfill and rail infrastructure. Work on this project is currently ongoing and scheduled to
be finished in late 2008. Following completion of the master plan, CSDLAC intends to pursue concurrent final
design and construction of the facilities necessary to begin operation. The MRL is scheduled to opcn for receipt of
refuse in 2009 (LACSD 2006b). (Id.)
Although the CSDLAC is in the process of increasing the capacity to accommodate future increases in
solid waste, these improvements are not yet in place and will not be completed until at least 2009. Further, there is
presently insufficient permitted disposal capacity within the existing system serving Los Angeles County, and,
therefore, would result in a significant cumulative impact on landfill capacity. Because the proposed Project
includes recycling of 50 percent of construction debris, and because landfill capacity at Puente Hills Landfill is
available through 2013 (two years after project construction), the proposed Project's contribution is not
cumulatively considerable during construction of the Project, and would be less than significant. However, the
proposed Project would contribute to insufficient permitted disposal capacity by contributing additional solid
waste to regional landfills during operational activities (throughout the life of the project). Therefore, the
proposcd Projcct's contribution to the cumulative landfill impact would be cumulatively considerable, and would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact. (Id.)
SECTION V
FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
An EIR must disclose the significant unavoidable impacts that will result from implementation of a
proposed Project. Scction 15126(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should explain the implications of
such impacts and the reasons why the Project is being proposed, notwithstanding such impacts. Implementation of
the proposed Project would result in the alteration of the physical environment. The proposed Project includes
design featurcs and proposes mitigation measures that either reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts to
a level below significance.
Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided If the Prooosed Proiect Is Imolemented
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that
cannot be avoided, even with thc implementation of feasible mitigation measures. (new Draft EIR at p. 5-1.)
Development of the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidablc project-related
and/or cumulative impacts:
. Aesthetics
-Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas
represented by Viewsheds A and B-project-related and cumulative
-Implementation of the proposed Project would result in new sources of increased nighttime light-
project-related and cumulative
. Air Quality
-Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD standards for
VOC, NO" and CO and would result in a projected air quality violation-project-related and cumulative
-Operation of the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD standards for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM 10 and
would result in a projected air quality violation-project-related and cumulative
-Construction and operation of the proposed Project would result in a cumulativcly considerable net
increase of criteria pollutants (CO, PM 10, and precursors of ozone VOC and NOx) for which the proposed
Project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or statc ambient air quality standard-
cumulative
185
-Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would generate emissions that would result
in an exceedance of localized significance thresholds for PM.. established by the SCAQMD, and,
therefore, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations-project-related and
cumulative
. Cultural Resources
-Implementation of the proposed Project would result in a substantial adverse change to two contributing
elements of the Santa Anita Park Historic District within the Paddock Gardens Area: the Saddling Barn
and the south ticket gates-project-related and cumulative
. Noise
-Operation of the proposed Project would generate traffic that would contribute to the exposure of persons
offsite to noise levels in excess of established standards of the City-project-related and cumulative
-Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would expose race horses residing on site to
excessive ground-borne vibration-project-related and cumulative
-Operation of the proposed Project would generate increased local traffic volumes that would cause a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity during weekday and
weekend racing days, as established by Performance Standard 44 in the City's General Plan-project-
related (weekday and weekend racing days) and cumulative (weekend racing days only)
-Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels such that horses located on site would bc exposed to excessive
noise-project-related and cumulative
. Transportation/Traffic
-Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular trips that would potentially result
in a substantial degradation in intersection levels of service on intersections located outside the City,
partially outside the City, or having concurrent jurisdiction with Caltrans-project-related and cumulative
-Operation of the proposed Project could result in impacts related to neighborhood traffic in the adjacent
residential areas to the Specific Plan Area-project-related and cumulative
-Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would exceed
established service Icvels on CMP freeway monitoring stations designated by the Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Program-project-related and cumulativc
-Operation of the proposed Project would result in additional vehicular traffic volumes that would exceed
established service Icvels at a CMP arterial monitoring station designated by the Los Angeles County
Congestion Management Program-project-related and cumulative
. Utilities and Scrvice Systcms
-Implementation of the proposed Project could generate solid waste that exceeds the permitted capacity of
landfills serving the City-project-related and cumulative. (new Draft EIR at pp. 5-1 to 5-3.)
Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed Project. (new Draft EIR at p. 5-3.) Generally, a
project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
. The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses
. The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources
. The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental'
accidents associated with the project
. The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the Project involves the wasteful use of
cnergy). (ld.)
186
Development of the proposed Project would result in the continued commitment of the City to
commercial/entertainment uses, thercby precluding any other uses for the lifespan of the Project. As discussed
previously, the 1996 City General Plan (General Plan) update identifies a long-term plan for the Specific Plan
Area, as one of four areas "which.. .possess opportunities for transitioning in the future." (Id.) The General Plan
acknowledges the "opportunity to create a development of urban intensity in the Racetrack's southerly parking lot
which recognizes the unique attributes of the Racetrack to the north and the Santa Anita Fashion Park [now called
Westfield Santa Anita] to the west. ..." (new Draft EIR at pp. 5-3 to 5-4.) In effect, the proposed new development
would include commercial uses that would operatc alongside existing Racetrack facilities. Although the proposed
development would continuc the commitment of a portion of the Project Site for commercial/entertainment uses
purposes for future generations, it does not represent a change in commitmcnt from existing and planned uses for
the site. Further, the proposed Project is essentially infill and would not represent conversion of previously
undeveloped land to developed uses. (Id.)
Resources that would bc permancntly and continually consumed by project implementation include water,
electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would
not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources.
New buildings in California are required to conform to energy conservation standards specified in CCR title 24.
The standards establish "energy budgets" for different types of residential and nonresidential buildings, with
which all new buildings must comply. Energy-efficient measures would be implemented to the maximum extent
feasiblc in all development under the proposed Project, including low-flow plumbing fixtures and drip irrigation.
In order to conform to CCR Title 24, efficient energy use in the Specific Plan Area would be enforced and would
ensure that energy-efficient building design and construction is followed. Where feasible, project features would
be designed to maximize solar gain and minimize heat-reflective surfaces, as well as providing landscaping where
appropriate to reduce heat reflection on adjacent structures. The development is sited and designed to maximize
access to sunlight and air. The Developer would cooperate with SCE and the Gas Company on available
demonstration projects and, where feasible, serve as a testing laboratory for new energy conservation techniques.
The proposed Project would utilize water-conserving plants to the greatest extent feasible in the landscape plan, as
well as drip irrigation in planter beds and the use of new or relocated mature trees (if feasible), which require less
water than younger specimens. The water feature would utilizc a rccirculation pump to minimize water lost to
evaporation, and recycled water from the water feature would be utilized for irrigation. Shrub plantings would be
utilized to the maximum extent feasible, minimizing the use of large expanses of turf. Compliance with all
applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that all
natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. It is also possible that new
technologies or systems would emerge, or would become more cost-effective or uscr-friendly, that would further
reduce the site's reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources; however, even with implementation of
conservation measures, consumption of natural resources would generally increase with implementation of the
proposed Project. (/d.)
Construction activitics related to the proposed Project would result in the irretrievable commitment of
nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline
for automobiles and construction equipment. (new Draft EIR at pp. 5-4-5-5.) In addition, a long-ternl increase in
the demand for electrical resources would occur. However, the proposed Project would not involve a wasteful or
unjustifiable use of energy or other resources, and energy conservation efforts could also occur with new
construction. In addition, new development associated with the proposed Project would be constructed and
operated in accordance with specifications contained in Title 24 of the CCR. Therefore, the use of energy on site
would occur in an efficient manner. The proposed Project would not involve uses that handle acutely hazardous
materials, as discussed in the EIR. The project consists of commercial, entertainment, and office uses that would
use only routine household-type cleaning materials and insect and weed controls such as detergents, cleansers,
pesticides, and herbicides. These are not considered acutely hazardous materials according to the National
Institutes of Health. During construction, it is possible that materials containing asbestos or lead could be
removed from the site when the Saddling Bam is relocated and portions demolished, and when the south ticket
187
gates are demolished. However, the risks or accident or upset from handling of these materials or transport of
these materials off site would be rcduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with federal, State,
and local regulations regarding thc handling all disposal of such materials, and mitigation measures that have been
included in the Project to reduce the risk of environmental accident. Thus, no irreversible damage would result
from any potential environmental accidents associated with the Project. (Id.)
SECTION VI
FINDINGS ON GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
As required by the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a discussion of the ways in which the
proposed Project could directly or indirectly foster economic development or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing and how that growth would, in tum, affect thc surrounding environment
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). (new Draft EIR at p. 5-5.) Growth can be induced in a number of ways,
including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the
region. The discussion of removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure
limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. Under
CEQA, induced growth is not considered necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the
environment. (Id.)
In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets
anyone of the criteria identified below:
. The project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service, or
the provision of new access to an area)
. The project results in the urbanization ofland in a remote location (leapfrog development)
. The project establishes a precedent-setting action (e.g., a change in zoning or general plan amendment
approval) .
. Economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the Project (e.g., changes in revenue base,
employment expansion, etc.). (new Draft EIR at p. 5-5.)
If a project meets anyone of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth-
inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension
of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned
growth. (Id.)
Remove an Imoediment to Growth/Precedent-Setting Action: Although the proposed Project includes
General Plan Amendments and a Zonc changes (via the proposed Specific Plan), the proposed land uses and
zoning would be consistent with the existing designations for the commercial and retail land uses. The proposed
General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan would not set a precedcnt by allowing commercial/entertainment and
office development within the City. In addition, existing General Plan designations call for a specific plan for
commercial devclopment. The proposed designations would be consistent with the nature of on-site and
surrounding development. Implementation of the amendments would allow for continued use of horseracing and
commercial development, while also permitting retail, commercial/entertainment, and office development to
promote increased land use compatibility with surrounding uses, notably Westfield Santa Anita and Santa Anita
Park. Therefore, the Project would not be growth inducing as a result of removing an impediment to growth or
establishing a precedent-setting action. No expansion of infrastructure that would facilitate growth would occur.
(Id. at pp. 5-5-5-6)
Urbanization of Land in a Remote Location: Implementation of the proposed Project would not
encourage growth through the urbanization of land in remote locations, resulting in "leapfrog" development. The
proposed Project is located in an urbanized area that is served by an existing and currently expanding network of
electricity, water, sewer, storm drain, communications, roadways, and other infrastructure sized to accommodate
or allow existing and planned growth. No growth-inducing impacts would occur as a result of development of the
Projcct Site. (Jd.)
188
Economic Exoansion or Growth: According to Southern Califomia Association of Government's
(SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), City employment is projected to grow from 24,478 jobs in 2005 to
28,678 jobs by the year 2015, which represents an overall growth of 4,200 jobs and a rate of approximately 15
percent over the ten-year period, or approximately 1.5 percent per year. (Id. at p. 5-6.) Given Los Angeles
County's (County) anticipatcd employment growth of approximately 12 percent between 2005 and 2015, or 1.2
percent per year, employment growth trends within the City are similar to the overall rate of growth anticipated in
County (employment growth in the County is projected to grow to 4,503,683 jobs in 2005 to 5,198,739 jobs in
2015.) The provision of 1,300 jobs associated with the proposed Project, including approximately 60 percent
(780) full-time jobs and approximately 40 percent (520) part-time jobs, is within the employment growth
forecasts for both the City and the County. (Id.)
The generation of new jobs as a result of the proposed Project would have a beneficial or neutral effect
upon the City's unemployment rate by providing jobs in a City that currently has a substantially higher number of
households than jobs. Based upon SCAG forecasts, as provided in the RTP, the number of households in the City
would increase from 19,565 in 2005 to 20,936 in 2015. (Id.)
Based on the available workforce in the Cities of Arcadia, Pasadena, Monrovia, and Temple City, which
combined is almost 5,500 unemployed workers, the full-time project employment for the commercial
entertainment and Simulcast Center portion of the Project could be filled by currently unemployed residents of the
City, as well as by unemployed residents in neighboring communities. Further, it is possible that some of the
positions would be filled by individuals who live even further away than the Cities of Arcadia, Pasadena,
Monrovia, or Temple City, which provides an even more extensive available labor force to fill the Project-
generated jobs. Also, it is possible that existing, employed residents of the City and/or neighboring communities
could change jobs and fill the new cmployment opportunities offered by the proposed development, providing an
additional potential labor pool. However, people are generally unlikely to move for jobs in the retail and food
service industry, even if they are managerial jobs; therefore, this analysis assumes that the new jobs provided by
the Project would not result in new households within the City. (Id.)
In addition, construction employees would also be required to construct the proposed Project. The number
of construction employees would vary depending upon the phase of construction, but would range from 25
employees at the beginning of construction activities to just over 1,000 employees during the most labor-intensive
phases of construction. (Id. at p. 5-7.) It is anticipated that out-of-area construction employees would commute
from elsewhere in the region, rather than relocate to the Arcadia area for a temporary construction assignment. In
addition, due to the nature of construction activities, the employment opportunities resulting from construction-
related work assignments are not considered permanent. Construction-related activities would, therefore, have a
negligible impact on population and housing resources. (Id.)
The retail market analysis performed by Speer Consulting in July 2006 determined that the total trade area
residents (defined as Alhambra, Altadena, Duarte, EI Monte, La CanadalFlintridge, Monrovia, Pasadena, South
Pasadena, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, Temple City, and Arcadia) now devote an estimated $3.4 billion
to shopping center-type retail expenditures, and this total is expected to increase to $4.0 billion in 2009 and to
$4.3 billion by 2011. It is expected that the proposed Project's retail component would capture between 5 and 6
percent of future retail spending within the primary trade area, with sales inflow from beyond the primary-trade
area of 30 percent. Total sales from the proposed Project are projected at $332 million in 2009, increasing to
approximately $359 million by 2011. It is anticipated that the proposed Project's retail component would capture
5 to 6 percent of future retail commercial spending (non-automotive) within the primary trade area, as well as 30
percent sales inflow from beyond the defined primary trade area. The retail component would absorb about 35
perccnt of the net excess demand within the trade area in 2009 (opening year), declining to about 24 percent of net
excess demand in 20 II, according to the market analysis. The proposed Project is expected to generate a net sales
tax gain to the City of approximately $2.30 million in 2009 and $2.49 million in 20 II. (Id.)
The combination of land uses in the proposed Project would function to increase retail and commercial
sales and activities within the City, as well as enhance the economic viability of the Racetrack and complement
189
the adjacent Westfield Santa Anita. The creation of new commercial activities and enhancement of existing
commercial facilities would contribute to the economic vitality of the City, which would enable the continued
provision of high-quality services and programs for residents and businesses and would contribute to a large
municipal revenue stream, as noted above. Furthermore, the proposed Project would pay all applicable
development fees for the necessary infrastructure and public services improvements, including those associated
with water, park, sewer, roadways, and policc, and would result in increased property tax revenues. (Id.)
The positive revenue stream may result in the creation of indirect and induced jobs. Indirect jobs are those
that would be created when the future owners and/or managers of the retail-commcrcial uses purchase goods and
services from businesses in the region, and induced jobs are those that are created when wage incomes of those
employed in direct and indirect jobs are spent on thc purchasc of goods and services in the region. (Id. at pp. 5-7
to 5-8.) The City's economic impacts are primarily the result of purchases of goods and services as well as
payment of taxes and sahiries, which affects the regional economy of the City and County, and, on a more indirect
basis, California. Therefore, the positive revenue stream and the resulting increased economic viability of the
Project Site could result in indirect growth-inducing impacts. (Id.)
SECTION VII
FINDINGS ON ALTERNATIVES
The City Council hereby dcclares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the altematives
identified in the EIR and described below. Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to describe a
range of reasonable alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which could feasibly achieve most
of its basic objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects identified in the EIR
analysis. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed Project, the relative environmental advantages
and disadvantages of each are weighed and analyzed. (new Draft EIR at p. 6-1.) The CEQA Guidelines require
that the range of alternatives addressed in an EIR be governed by a rule of reason. Not every conceivable
alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible altematives need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126.6). Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines and case law state that the factors that may be taken
into account when addressing the fcasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, other plans or regulatory limitations, and jurisdictional boundaries and consistency with project
objectives. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either avoiding or substantially
lessening any significant environmental effects of the Project, even if the alternative would impede, to some
degree, the attainment of the Project objectives or would be more costly. The alternatives discussion should not
consider altematives whose implemcntation is remote or speculative, and the analysis need not be presented in the
same level of detail as the assessment of the Project. (ld.)
Proiect Obiectives:
. Create a center with a vibrant outdoor "Main Street" ambicnce that provides numerous high-quality rctail,
dining, a multi-screen cinema and entertainment venues such that visitors will be attracted to the Santa
Anita Racetrack throughout the year. (new Draft EIR at pp. 2-8 and 6-1.)
. Create a high-quality, comprehcnsive, and integrated open-air commercial, retail and entertainment center
that is distinctive, includes retail opportunities unavailable in the City, and constitutes a public space for
the Arcadia community. (ld.)
. Enhance the cultural fabric of the community by providing outdoor plazas, a park area, and publicly
accessible artwork. (Id.)
. Provide an expanded economic base for the City that maximizes property and sales tax revenue. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 2-9 and 6-1.)
. Physically connect the center to the Paddock Gardens while preserving the formal design of the Paddock
'Gardens in order to create a seamless relationship between the center and the Racetrack. (ld.)
. Provide employment opportunities for City residents. (Id.)
. Develop and provide new office space to the Arcadia School District administration to help it shape the
best possible educational programs for Arcadia studcnts. (ld.)
190
. Provide a center that will attract patrons who will also visit the Santa Anita Racetrack, thereby bolstering
and strengthening the financial viability of the Racetrack and fostering its continued operation. (new Draft
EIR at pp. 2-9 and 6-2.)
. Create a pedestrian-oriented commercial center with an emphasis on an open space network of landscaped
streets, sidewalks, paseos, promenadcs, and public space that forms an important gathering place for the
Arcadia community. (Id.)
. Ensure land use compatibility by creating a logical physical relationship to the adjacent Westfield Santa
Anita mall, the Santa Anita Racetrack, and existing circulation infrastructure through vehicular and
pedestrian links. (Id.)
. Create a special place that blends a new complex of uses and buildings into the design heritage of the
Santa Anita Racetrack. (Id.)
. Revitalize the Santa Anita Racetrack, by incorporating development on the site in a manner that is
complementary and respectful of its important and historic role in the community. (Id.)
. Preserve and enhance public accessibility of the existing Racetrack Grandstand such that it can be viewed
and accessed from within the center and viewed from locations along Huntington Drive. (Id.)
. Utilize architectural design, lighting, sign age, water features and landscape materials to give the center a
distinctive and pleasing appearance. (Id.)
. Increase the food shopping alternatives in Arcadia by providing a gourmet market and specialty food
pavilion. (Id.)
. Preserve the pre-race pageantry and parade of the horses from the Saddling Barn through the Paddock
Gardens and Walking Circle to the Racetrack, and make viewing of this pageantry available. (Id.)
Reasonable Range of Altematives: Chapter 6.0 of the new Draft EIR provides a comprehensive analysis
of the merits of various alternatives to the proposed Project pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines.
(Final EIR, Responsc to Comments, at p. 4-79.) An EIR need not consider every conceivable altemative to a
project. (Final EIR, Response to Comments, at p. 4-80.) Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to
consider altematives which arc infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project
altematives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no
ironclad rule goveming the nature or scope of the altematives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. (/d.)
Description of Alternatives: Following the directive discussed above, a number of alternatives were
analyzed in the new Draft EIR which include:
. Alternative I, No Project/No Development - Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(l) of the CEQA
Guidelines, this Alternative assumes that no development would occur on the Project Site in the
foreseeable future. No General Plan Amendments or zone changes would occur, and the Project Site
would remain as surface parking. None of the associated infrastructure improvements would occur.
. Alternative 2, No Project/Continuation and Development of Uses Allowed by the Existing General Plan -
Consistent with Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines, this Altemative assumes the
maximum development level articulated for the Specific Plan Area in the City's General Plan, which
would permit commercial development at a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.3, or up to 1.1 million gsf. It is
assumed for this analysis that the development under this Alternative would be upscale complementary
retail uses, including a cinema, but would exclude the water feature and gourmet grocery, with structure
heights up to 55 feet, architectural features such as cupolas up to 67 feet, and flagpoles up to 85 feet. This
Alternative would include the Simulcast Center.
. Alternative 3, Reduced Projcct Alternative - This Alternative examines the project reduced by half of the
proposed square footage. This alternative assumes that approximately one-half of the commercial and
office development would be constructed, which would yield approximately 415,000 sf of development,
191
including approximately 402,500 sf of commercial/retail uses and 12,500 sf of office uses. This
Altemative would include the Simulcast Centcr, reduced by half of the proposed square footage.
. Altemative 4, Altem~tive Mix of Uses with Hotel and Office - This Alternative would develop 829,000 sf
and include a 100,000 sf, 100-room hotel that would be situated on the northeast side of the Project Site,
adjacent to the Methodist Hospital and occupying part of the space currently designated for the Project as
surface parking. The hotel would be four stories in height, or a maximum of 55 feet, which is within the
height limits specificd in the Specific Plan. Office uses would consist of 329,250 sf in three stories. The
commercial/retail component would consist of approximately 400,000 sf with a maximum of one story,
with a two-story parking garage on the west side. This Alternative would include a cinema, as well as the
Simulcast Center, but no gourmet grocery.
. Altemative 5, Alternative Site Configuration - This Alternative assumes development of up to 829,250 sf
of commercial uses in an altemative site configuration that would concentrate development on the
southeastern portion of the proposed site to avoid adverse effects on views of the Santa Anita Park
Grandstand from the south, preserve existing views from the east and retain the Saddling Bam and south
ticket gates. This Alternative would include the Simulcast Center, but not the water feature or most of the
open space amenities.
(Final EIR, Response to Comments, at pp. 4-80-81; see a/so Draft EIR at pp. 6-4-6-6.)
Evaluation of Alternatives
These alternatives represent a "reasonable range" of alternatives in that they consider: (I) a different mix
of land uses, (2) a scaled-down project size, and (3) a different location on the site. (Final EIR, Response to
Comments, at p. 4-81.) Further, these alternatives were determined to be able to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, traffic, and utilities. The new Draft
EIR analyzed each alternative pursuant to the requirements ofCEQA Guidelines section 15126.6. (ld)
Under Altemative I, no new environmental impacts would occur. While maintenance of the Project Site
in its present state would avoid any new environmental impacts, there is uncertainty as to the continued long-term
viability of the Racetrack as n horse racing use. Due to a general decline in interest in the sport and attendance at
the Racetrack, it is possible that current use of these facilitics as a live horse racing venuc may be significantly cut
back, modified, or eliminated in order to restore financial health to the property. Thus, selection of this
Alternative could have potentially significant environmental impacts as a result of the future use of the Racetrack,
would not meet the objectives of the Project, and could have a significant economic impact on City revenues. (/d.)
Alternative 2 would not avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts of thc proposed Project related to
aesthetics, air quality, cultural resources, noise, traffic, and utilities, since it is a considerably larger project. Build-
out of the maximum development level articulated for thc Specific Plan Area in the City's General Plan, which is
1.1 million sf of commercial space as well as construction of the 97,977 sf (net addition of 16,837 sf on live
racing days) Simulcast Center, would allow for greater development than under the Project. Consistent with
Section 15126(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines, this Alternative is not included to reduce or avoid project
impacts, but to disclose the potential impacts that would result from development of the uses and square footage
currently permitted by the City. While it does meet the proposed Project objectives, it does not provide a
reduction in environmental impacts. (ld.)
Alternative 3 would reduce, but not avoid, significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics, air
quality, cultural resources, noise, traffic, and utilities. Build-out of a smaller project would reduce some of the
construction impacts related to noise, and air quality, but they would still remain significant even after the
implementation of mitigation measures. This Alternative would, however, meet most of the Project objectives,
except the development of a new office space for the Arcadia School District. (Final EIR, Response to Comments,
at pp. 4-81-82.) The expanded economic base for sales tax revenues would also be reduced as a result of the
decreased commercial/retail space. (Final EIR, Response to Comments, at p. 4-82.)
192
Altemative 4 would reduce, but not avoid, significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and
traffic. It would result in similar impacts to aesthetics, cultural resources, and noise and would actually increase
impacts to utilities due to the incremental population increase. This Alternative, which considers an altemate mix
of hotel and office uses, includes components that were suggested in comments responding to the Project NOP.
This Alternative would not significantly reduce impacts to views, as the structures would be up to 55 feet, the
same as the proposed Project. Construction and operational impacts relatcd to traffic, noise, and air quality would
also not be reduced. This Alternative would, however, meet most of the Project objectives, excluding the
objective of increasing food shopping alternatives in Arcadia. According to a letter from PKF Consulting, the
placement of a hotel at the Project Site would compete with other hotels within the City, neighboring Monrovia,
and portions of Pasadena. As stated in this letter, the Arcadia/Monrovia hotel market, while strong in terms of
occupancy, is not achieving the average daily room rates that would support a development of a full service hotel
with approximately 250 rooms. This is because the hotel construction costs nationally and regionally have
increased, which supports the observation that no other full service hotels have bcen constructed rccently in the
City. (/d.)
Alternative 5 would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics and cultural resources due to
its location on the Racetrack site, and would reduce, but not avoid, impacts to noise and traffic. This Alternative
would actually increasc impacts to air quality and utilities due to increased intensity in construction. The alternate
site configuration was sclected to preserve focal views of the Grandstand as well as avoid demolition of the
Saddling Barn and south ticket gates. However, construction and operational impacts related to traffic, noise and
air quality would still rcmain significant even after the implementation of mitigation measures. This Alternative
would not meet most of the Project objectives. (Id.) The Weston Benshoof Altemative would fully meet four of
the project objectives, meet two project objectivcs to a somewhat lesser extent than the proposed project, one
project objective to a significantly lesser extent than the proposed, and nine project objectives not at all.
As part of the process of selecting the Alternativcs studied in the new Draft EIR, over fifteen alternatives
options, including some suggested by the public during the public review period, were evaluated in concept. Each
of these altematives options werc reviewed to determine if they could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the
Project, as well as avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project. Section 6.2 of the new
Draft EIR discusses the various aliernatives that were considered and explains the reasons for rejection. (ld.) The
altematives options considered and rejected as infeasible fell into the following general categories:
. Alternative locations at Santa Anita Park
. Alternative locations within the City
. Alternative locations outside the City
. Community center and auditorium
. Medical buildings, stores, and condominiums
. Open space
. Park
. Residential uses only
. School (including an auditorium)
. Technology park
. Phased construction
. Maximum reduction of impacts (traffic, air quality, noise, and aesthetics)
. Regional performing arts center
. Alternative locations for the Simulcast Center. (Final EIR, Response to Comments, at pp. 4-82-83.)
In each category, various design options and configurations were considered. (Final EIR, Response to
Comments, at p. 4-83.) Overall, the alternatives options considered wcre determined either to be infeasible, fail to
meet most project objectives, or fail to lessen environmental impacts. These infeasible alternatives options
include: altemative locations (both on and off-site); alternative uses (including community center, medical uses,
193
open space and park, residential and institutional); alternative development scenarios that would maxImIze
reduction of impacts; a regional performing arts center; and relocation of existing facilities. (Id.)
In particular, one of these potential alternatives considered (the one designed to provide maximum
reduction of impacts) demonstrates how small the Project would need to be to avoid triggering the air quality,
noise and traffic significance thresholds. The resulting project was so small that it failed to meet almost all of the
Project objectives, as further explained in Section 6.2 of the new Draft EIR. (Id.)
According to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider alternatives that are
infeasible. As such, these alternatives were rejected as infeasible for one or more factors, including: (I) they did
not reduce environmental impacts; (2) they did not achieve most of the basic project objectives; and/or (3) they
were not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors. Section 6 of the new Draft EIR analyzes
these conceptual alternatives and provides justification as to why they were not fully analyzed. (Id.)
Off-Site Alternative
In furtherance of the requirements for an EIR to include a reasonable range of altematives to the Project
or to the location of the Project, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), Section 6.2.1 of the new
Draft EIR provides an analysis of the various altemative locations that were considered, including other locations
at Santa Anita Park, alternate locations in the City, and alternate locations outside the City. (Final EIR, Response
to Comments, at pp. 4-83-84.)
Other locations considered at Santa Anita Park include the area on the north side of the Racetrack. (Final
EIR, Response to Comments, at p. 4-84.) Although this alternative would meet many of the Project objectives, it
would not reduce or avoid most of the significant impacts related to the construction or operation of the proposed
Project and would actually create additional impacts, such as noise due to its close proximity to existing single-
family residential uses abutting the Racetrack to the north and the blocking of the view of the San Gabriel
Mountains from the Grandstand. This site would also not meet the goals of the General Plan. Similarly, other
locations considered within and outside the City werc determined not to be feasible for a number of reasons,
including: (I) lack of sites large enough to accommodate the Project (approximately 40 acres) since the City is
largely built out; (2) the site would not reduce or avoid many of the significant impacts associated with
construction of the proposed Project (e.g. traffic and air quality) because these impacts would generally be similar
to those at the Racetrack; (3) the site would fail to meet several of the Project objectives, including the primary
objective of revitalizing the Racetrack; and (4) the site would not meet the General Plan's goals and objectives for
development of the Racetrack as stated on page 2-16 of the Arcadia General Plan. (Id.)
Weston Benshoof Alternative
Westficld Santa Anita's legal counsel, Weston Benshoof Rochefort Rubalcava MacCuish LLP, proposed
an additional altemative concept in comments on the new Draft EIR. (Final EIR, Comments, at Comment 8-36.)
This mixed-use alternative (the "Weston Benshoof Alternative") would include medical and professional office
space (230,000 sf, split equally between medical office space and professional office space); an automobile
dealership (45,000 sf); a hotel with approximately 250 rooms (190,000 sf); retail/commercial spacc (50,000 sf); a
75-room adult assisted living residential facility (70,000 sf); a museum commemorating the history of the
Racetrack (10,000 sf); and open space (25 acres). Unlike the proposed Project, the Weston Benshoof Alternative
Development Plan would not include a water feature. The specific components layout of the Weston Benshoof
Alternative Development Plan is illustrated by Figure 4-1, Suggested Mixed-Use Alternative, of the Final EIR.
As discussed in Response to Comments 8-36 and 8-126 in the Final EIR and in the economic assessment
memorandum prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (refer to Appendix C of the Final EIR), the medical office
and hotel components of this altemative would be economically infeasible. As noted in the Keyser Marston
analysis, using average room rates of $140 with a 70 percent occupancy, and using industry standards for
development costs results in a significant project gap (costs too high and return too low) which makes the hotel
infeasible. (See the Keyser Marston Associates Economic Assessment Memorandum, dated February 6, 2007,
194
FEIR p. 4-240) In addition, it appears that the alternative includes extended stay units. The City's Transient
Occupancy Tax (TOT) does not tax guests who stay longer than 30 days, and it is retroactive to the beginning of
the stay. So the TOT assumption provided by the economic consultant in the altemative is too aggressive of a
revenue estimate if there are going to be extended stay units. The proposal for the professional offices has the
same lack of analysis and documentation to support the HR&A conclusion, and using industry standards for
development costs and well as current markct area rents, this alternative is infeasible as well. Under all uses
proposed in the alternative, no land costs are included, which if included would make all these uses even less
fcasible.
Moreover, the Weston Benshoof alternative would not meet most of the Project objectives. As further
explained in Responses to Comments 8-36 and 8-120 in the Final EIR, this alternative would not create a vibrant
outdoor Main Street atmosphere due to the limited amount of retail space; nor would it provide a cinema or other
entertainment venuc, active open space, or public artwork to the extent that would occur under the proposed
project. Although it would include open space, this alternative would not create a distinctive, high-quality,
comprehensive, and integrated open-air commercial, retail, and entertainment center because its design would not
be focused around a centralized' Main Street with paseos. Considering the small amount of retail land uses
included in this altemative, it is likely that this alternative would not include a gourmet market and specialty food
pavilion. While it may be possible to develop some open space surrounding the existing Arcadia Wash, the
proposed naturalized channel presented in the Weston Benshoof Alternative places a naturalized channel in the
very same place that the Arcadia Wash Naturalization Feasibility Study indicates that the existing concrete
Arcadia Wash must remain; therefore. the ability of the Weston Benshoof Alternative to have open space and
parkland to the degree it proposes is questionable. Further, unlike the proposed project, which integrates
significant open spaces and plazas in a manner that "bookends" Main Street", it appears that most of the open
space and landscaping in the Weston Benshoof Alternative relates to parking lots and roadways, instead of
enhancing the cultural fabric of the community with plazas or similar usable open space. This alternative would
not revitalize the Santa Anita Racetrack because the assisted living and auto dealership components would
provide very little, if any, synergistic interaction with the Racetrack and Westfield Santa Anita. The office
component would provide limited weekday interaction and no weekend interaction. This alternative would not
incorporate development on the site in a complementary manner respectful to its historic role in the community.
This altemative contains no visual, spatial, or architectural connection to the Paddock Gardens and Grandstand,
and no seamless relationship between the proposed alternative and the Racetrack would be provided. Also, no
office space for the AUSD administration would be included. While this alternative would not relocate the
existing Saddling Barn or demolish the south ticket gates, and would not affect the pre-race pageantry and parade
of the horses from the Saddling Barn through the Paddock Gardens and Walking Circle to the Racetrack, it would
not make viewing of this pageantry available to the visitors to the alternative by opening the Paddock Gardens to
the proposed alternative. Also, this alternative would be economically infeasible. This altemative would provide
substantially less retail square footage than the proposed project, although it would include hotel uses. With
substantially less retail space, the number of visitors to the center would decrease compared to the proposed
project (office workers would be essentially the same "visitors" year in and year out, while retail attracts a
constant variety of visitors). Therefore, this alternative would be expected to attract substantially fewer visitors to
the Racetrack, and, therefore, bolster and strengthen the financial viability of the Racetrack to a significantly
lesser extent than the proposed project. While this alternative would include an open space network of pedestrian
and vchicular connections, thc intemal pedestrian and vehicular connections provided by the proposed Project are
substantially more comprehensive than those associated with this alternative. This alternative would not include
the water feature or additional landscaped setbacks as the proposed project. The visual connection with the
historic features of the Racetrack would not be provided, as there would be no direct connection with the Paddock
Gardens that promotes the distinctive appearance of the proposed project. Also, this alternative would not provide
a direct connection to Westfield Santa Anita. Development under this alternative would provide a direct visual
connection to the Grandstand from Huntington Drive (Viewshed A). Howevcr, from Huntington Drive and Holly
A venue (Viewshed B), the eastern portion of the Grandstand would be partially obstructed by the proposed
museum and medical offices under this alternative.
195
The Weston Benshoof Altemative would not meet nine of the Project objectives at all and would fully
meet four of the Project objcctives, two Project objectives to a somewhat lesser extent than the proposed Project,
and one Project objective to a significantly lesser extent than the proposed Project.
The Weston Benshoof Alternative would increase the following twenty-two project impacts: three
aesthetics impacts (Viewsheds C, D, and increased light and glare); one air quality impact (inconsistency with
AQMP); one cultural (demolition of cast tickct gates); four hazardslhazardous materials impacts (use, storage and
transportation of hazardous materials; use of hazardous materials within Y. mile of an existing school; increased
risk from vectors; exposure of visitors and employees to greater amount of hazardous materials); two hydrology
impacts (increase of erosion or siltation off-site and disturbance of water flow); three land use (inconsistency with
General Plan goals; incompatibility of uses; increased population not accounted for in AQMP); three noise
(exposure of new noise-sensitive residential land uses on site to noise levels that exceed standards; groundborne
vibration from construction could occur near assisted-living facility if constructed first; exposure of greater
number of sensitive land uses to noise from ambulances); two population and housing impacts (substantial direct
population and housing growth); two public services impacts (additional impacts to recreational facilities); and
one traffic impact (intersection impacts outside City).
Of the increased impacts noted above, this alternative would result in the following nine new significant
and unavoidable impacts compared to the proposed project: two aesthetics impacts (Viewsheds C and D); one air
quality impact (inconsistency with AQMP); one cultural (demolition of east ticket gates); two land use impacts
(incompatibility of land uses and exceedance of population growth projections in General); two population and
housing impacts (substantial direct growth in both population and housing); and one traffic impact (unmitigated
intersection impacts).
The Weston Benshoof Alternative would reduce two ofthc significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts
(Viewsheds A and B) of the proposed project; however, as noted above, it would result in two new significant and
unavoidable impacts to Viewsheds C and D.
Overall, while this alternativc would reduce some of the already less-than-significant impacts of the
proposed Project, it would result in new impacts, would increase the number of significant and unavoidable
impacts when compared to the proposed Project, and would only reduce two significant and unavoidable impacts
of the project.
In summary, the Weston Benshoof Alternative would not achieve the objectives to the same degree as the
proposed project, and, also, this alternative would conflict with the objectives in the General Plan with respect to
the type and intensity of land uses, as well as the physical and synergistic connections to the Racetrack and
Westfield Santa Anita.
Additional Alternatives Prooosed bv Weston Benshoof on Aoril 10.2007
On April 10,2007, Weston Benshoof, as counsel for Westfield, suggested two new alternatives. The two
entirely new alternatives would leave the Saddling Bam and south ticket gates in place, but would not meet key
project objectives. They would fail to provide a seamless integration of uses, would eliminate open space, and
block or obscure the view of the Grandstand from the park in the northem portion of the alternative. Essentially,
the alternatives would framc the back of the Jockeys Room as a focal point. The General Plan stresses the
importance of establishing linkages between a commercial use in this area and the Racetrack. Alternatives that
involve a sidewalk or pathway around the Saddling Barn and ticket gates do not provide a direct linkage
functionally, aesthetically, or visually, and would not support the General Plan's goals for providing a synergistic
connectivity between the two sites. The two new altematives thus would not achieve the project objectives or
General Plan goals to the same degree as the proposed Project.
196
Also on April 10, 2007, Weston Benshoof proposed new modifications to the Weston Benshoof
Alternative discussed above. The newly modified Weston Benshoof Altemative remains infeasible, for the
reasons set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the memorandum from Keyser Marston dated April 12, 2007.
The newly modified alternative also continues to fail to meet critical project objectives. The Weston
Benshoof Alternative, as modified by the commenter on April 10, would include a variety of disparate uses that
have a limited synergistic relationship. The General Plan does not address the potcntial of such uses as an auto
dealership and residential uses within the area. The General Plan states that a development on this site should
provide, "a unique shopping experience, emphasizing a mix of general retailing and specialty goods" and
"attracting a wide variety of sit down restaurants and other types of eating establishments is important to the
success of establishing a functional link between the mall's commercial uses and the racetrack's entertainment
identity." The General Plan also states that "office uses should, at most, be a minor portion of new development
and be supportive of the overall commercial character." The modified altemativc provides an auto dealership (in a
location that requires a General Plan Amendment), assisted living facility and 230,000 square feet of office space.
All clearly are not contemplated by the General Plan. The only logical synergy is between the assisted living
facility and the hospital. It is unlikely that someone from the assisted living facility would be visiting the
Racetrack, Westfield, and/or the automobile dealership. Similarly, a person from the hotel would not visit the
automobilc dealcrship or thc assisted living facilities, and someone visiting the automobile dealership is unlikely
to visit Westfield. The retail uses proposed under this alternative would not have a synergistic relationship with
Westfield due to the distancc between the two. Further, it is unlikely that anyone Developer would develop a
project with such disparate uses. In addition, there is no synergistic commercial relationship between the
Racetrack and the Westfield Santa Anita Mall. The only connection would be a long pedestrian walkway that
crosses over two roadways. Finally, the altcrnative as modified removes a parking structure but does not indicate
how this parking will be replaced, precluding any meaningful review of parking standards.
Beyond the newly modified altemative's infeasibility and failure to meet project objectives, the newly
modified Weston Benshoof Alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed Project. Even if the East
Ticket Gates are retained, this alternative would still result in at least 21 impacts that are greater than the proposed
Project, including six new significant and unavoidable impacts as compared to the proposed Project.
Determination of the Environrnentallv Suoerior Alternative
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must identify the environmentally
superior alternative from among the alternatives. The selection of the environmentally superior altemative shows
that meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison of the alternatives was undertaken. (/d.)
As analyzed in Section 6.4 and shown in Table 6-27 of the new Draft EIR, Alternative 1 (No Project/No
Dcvelopment) would result in no impacts since no development would occur. Altemative 2 (No Project/General
Plan Build-out) would reduce one of the Project's significant impacts (traffic) but not to a less-than-significant
level, and, in fact, would incrcase the severity of identified significant and unavoidable impacts to viewsheds and
noise since it is larger than the proposed Project. (Id.) Alternative 3 (Reduced Project) would reduce thirteen
impacts (aesthetics, air quality, noise, traffic, utilities), one to a less-than-significant level (noise). (Final EIR,
Response to Comments, at pp. 4-84-85.) Alternative 4 (Alternate Mix of Uses) would reduce five impacts (all
four air quality and one traffic), but not to a less-than-significant level, and would increase the severity of one
impact (utilities). (Final EIR, Response to Comments, at p. 4-85.) Alternative 5 (Alternate Site Configuration)
would reduce seven project impacts (one aesthetics, two air quality, one cultural resources, two noise and one
traffic), three to a less-than-significant level (aesthetics, cultural resources and noise), but would increase one
impact of the Project (utilities). Alternative 5 would be the environmentally superior alternative, as this
Altemative would reduce the greatest number of significant impacts to a less-than-significant level (obstruction of
views, avoidance of cultural resource impacts, and avoidance of ground-borne vibration impacts on racehorses).
However, Alternative 5 would not meet most of the Project objectives. (Id.)
197
SECTION VIII
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the Guidelines Sections 15093 and 15043, the
City has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project, including
the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, against the following unavoidable adverse
impacts associated with the proposed Project and discussed in Section IV hereof, and has adopted all feasible
mitigation measures with respect to these impacts: (I) Aesthetics, (2) Air Quality, (3).Cultural Resources, (4)
Noise, (5) Transportation/Traffic, (6) Utilities and Service Systems. The City also has examined alternatives to
the proposed Project, none of which both meet the Project objectives and is environmentally superior to the
proposed Project, as discussed in Section VII hereof.
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above may be
considered "acceptable" due to the following specific benefits and considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the benefits and reasons set forth
below in this Statement of Overriding Considerations constitutes a separate and independent basis of justification
for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and each is able to independently support this Statement of
Overriding Considerations and override all unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. Each benefit set
forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project, independent of other
benefits, despite each and ev<:ry unavoidable impact.
Project benefits include, but are not limited to, the following:
. The Project fulfills the City General Plan goal of "creat[ing] a development of urban intensity in the
racetrack's southerly parking lot which recognizes the unique attributes of the racetrack to the north and
the Westfield Santa Anita [now called Westfield Santa Anita mall] to the west..... (ncw Draft EIR at pp.
1-2,3-1,4.8-35,4.8-36.)
. The Project replaces a vast, underutilized parking lot with a unique commercial development consisting
of retail, dining, and entertainment opportunities in furtherance of the City General Plan goals and
objectives. (new Dratl EIR at pp. 1-2,3-1,3-9,3-10.)
. The Project increases the property tax base of the property and results in the creation of sales tax revenues
through the addition of the Projcct's retail, dining, and entertainment venues. (new Draft EIR, at pp 4.8-
34,4.8-35,4.8-50,4.8-55, Appendix N - Speer Market Analysis, p. 30.)
. The Project promotes the development of Arcadia as a major center of retail, dining, and entertainment,
encouraging rcsidents to patronize local businesses, as well as attracting visitors and customers from other
nearby cities. (new Draft EIR at p. 4.8-30.)
. The Project would provide a $2 million payment to the City of Arcadia pursuant to provisions of the
Development Agreement.
The Project helps revitalize the Santa Anita Racetrack, which has seen its prominence in the community
and importance as a premier venue for thoroughbred horseracing diminish as a result of declining interest
in the sport and historically low attendancc figures. (new Draft EIR at p. 1-2, Topical Response NO.5
Santa Anita Racetrack.)
. The Project creates a high quality, comprehensive, and integrated open-air retail center with a vibrant
"Main Street" ambience that will help attract visitors to the Santa Anita Racetrack throughout the year.
(new Draft EIR at pp. 3-26,3-31,4.8-43,4.8-110.)
. The Project provides a community performing arts venue in the cinema building that will enhance the
cultural fabric of the community. (new Draft EIR at pp. 3-41, 4.8-41, 4.8-42.)
198
. The Project furthers connectivity with surrounding uses by providing at least two new pedestrian links
and onc new vehicular link between the Project area and Westfield Santa Anita and seamlessly integrates
the Project with the Racetrack. Thc Projcct includes a landscaped sidewalk along Huntington Drive to
encourage pedestrian activity and create synergy with surrounding land uses. (new Draft EIR at p. 3-32,
3-51.)
. The Project contributes to the creation of a modem, efficient, and balanced urban environment that
reflects a high regard for architecture, landscape and urban design principles, yet is complementary and
respectful of the historic significance and character of the Santa Anita Racetrack. (new Draft EIR at pp. 3-
31,4.1-27-30.)
. Thc Projcct gcnerates approximately 1,000 construction employees and 1,300 long-term employment
positions, of which 60 percent (780) would be full-time and 40 percent (520) would be part-time. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-12, 4.8-13, 4.8-42.)
. The Project expands shopping opportunities available in the City by providing upscale fashion anchors, a
gourmet grocer, restaurants, and other complementary retail uses that will meet current and future
demand. (new Draft EIR at pp. 4.8-34, 4.8-43, Appendix N - Speer Market Analysis.)
. The Project funds millions of dollars in infrastructure and transportation improvements. (new Draft EIR at
pp. 3-1,3-53,3-54,3-57,3-58,4.13-75,4.13-81,4.13-82.)
. The Project provides new administrative office space for the Arcadia School District to help it shape the
best possible educational programs for Arcadia students. (new Draft EIR at p. 3-31.)
. The Project preserves and enhances public accessibility of the Racetrack's Grandstand such that it can be
vicwed and accessed from within the center and viewed from locations along Huntington Drive. (new
Draft EIR at pp. 4.1-21-23, 4.8-38, 4.8-39.)
. The Project provides an expanded Paddock Garden, open space, landscaped areas, and plazas that will
encourage interaction among residents and serve as an important community gathering place. (new Draft
EIR at pp. 3-42, 3-51.)
. The Project provides a Water Feature and public artwork that will contribute to Arcadia's civic identity.
(new Draft EIR at pp. 3-32, 3-52.)
The City Council hereby declares that the Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that
may occur as a result of the Project. (new Draft EIR at pp. 5-1, 5-2.) With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the Final EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for
unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section IV hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it has
made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from
the Project. The City Council further finds, as discussed in Section VII hereof, that except for the Project, all
other altematives set forth in the Final EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project
objectives and/or of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any
environmental bcnefits of the alternatives. (new Draft EIR at p. 6-7.) All mitigation measures proposed by
commenters for the Project, unless adopted and incorporated into the MMRP or agreed to be undertaken by
Developer, have been deternlined to be infeasible for the reasons set forth in the record, including without
limitation the Final EIR and subsequent additional responses to comments provided to this City Council.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council hereby declares that the benefits provided to the public
through approval of the Project and implementation of the Specific Plan and other entitlements under the
Approval Documents, outweigh any significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project. The City Council
finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs the adverse environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR, and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The substantial evidenc.e
demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these findings, and in the documents found in the record of
199
proceedings, discussed in Section XI below. Therefore, the City has adopted this Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
SECTION IX
CERTIFICATION OF EIR
The City Council certifies that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the proposed
Project and the Specific Plan and other entitlements under the Approval Documents, that the Final EIR fully
complies with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the
City.
The City Council cerlifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findinl!s:
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR and will require
mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance:
Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems.
B. Conclusions:
I. Except as to those impacts stated above relating to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources,
Noise, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems, all significant environmental impacts from the
implementation of the proposed Project have been identified in the Final EIR and, with implementation of the
mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
2. Other altematives to the proposed Project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of
the proposed Project, havc been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the
development of the proposed Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed Project or
further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed Project.
SECTION X
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REpORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6(a)(I), the City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A". In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth
herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.
SECTION XI
CONTENTS AND CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been
based are located at the City of Arcadia Development Services Department, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia,
California 91007. The custodian for these records is the Planning Director. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e).
The record of proceedings for the City Council's decision on the Project consists of the following
documents;at a minimum:
. The Project NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the Project;
. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment periods on the new
Draft EIR;
. All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the Project, in addition to timely
comments on the new Draft EIR;
200
. The Final EIR for The Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, including the new Draft EIR, comments received
on the new Draft EIR, responses to those comments, technical appendices, Corrections and Additions, the
Additional Environmental Analysis, and the MMRP;
. The MMRP;
. All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Councilor Planning Commission in connection with The
Santa Anita Park Specific Plan Project and Approval Documents, and all documents cited or referred to
therein;
. All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project
prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the City's
compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to action on The Santa Anita Park Specific
Plan;
. All documents submitted to the City (including the Planning Commission and City Council) by other
public agencies or members of the public in connection with The Santa Anita Park Specific Plan, up
through thc close of the public hearing period;
. Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public meetings, and public hearings
held by the City in connection with The Santa Anita Park Specific Plan;
. Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information sessions, public meetings
and public hearings;
. The City General Plan and all environmental documents prepared in connection with the adoption of the
General Plan;
. Matters of common knowledge, including, but not limited to Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations;
. Any documents expressly cited or referenced in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and
. Any other materials rf:quired for the record of proceedings by CEQA section 21167 .6(e).
SECTION XII
STAFF DIRECTION AND SEVERABILITY
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within five (5) working days of
final Project approval.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution, or any
part thereof, is for any rcason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of the Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it
would have passed each section, subscction, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences clauses, or
phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
201
Passed, approvcd and adopted this 17th day of April, 2007.
Mayo~
ATTEST:
~/$~
, \
Ity Clerk of the CIty of ArcadIa
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~P.Ictw~
Stephen P. Deitsch
202
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. 6564 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 17th day of April,
2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Amundson, Harbicht, Segal, Wuo and Chandler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
City Clerk of the City of Arca a
203