No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: City Council appeal of Planning Commission Approval of LLA 12-03, CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, & MP 12-10.G~ C'PytFOg�j9 y� f x c�morco� Au6usC 190 5, LYU3 °�unty °f STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: February 5, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 12 -03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -18, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -29, AND MODIFICATION NO. MP 12 -10, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FOR THREE NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 64,255 SQUARE FEET, TWO RESTAURANTS WITHIN THE NEW BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,600 SQUARE FEET, AND A NEW FOUR -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 161 COLORADO PLACE. Recommendation: Affirm Planning Commission Actions SUMMARY At the January 22, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted the attached Resolution No. 1867 to approve the above - described applications and project, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. In accordance with the Arcadia Municipal Code, the Planning Commission action is subject to appeal and /or City Council call up for review. City Council Member Gary Kovacic has called up the project for City Council review and, as stipulated by the Arcadia Municipal Code, the review process is to proceed as an appeal hearing before the City Council. It is recommended that the City Council affirm the actions of the Planning Commission and adopt the attached City Council Resolution No. 6858. DISCUSSION A full description and discussion of the proposed project is presented in the attached January 8, 2013, Planning Commission staff report. The Planning Commission considered the above - described applications and project together with a Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing at its regular meeting of January 8, 2013, and voted 5 -0 to conditionally approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The minutes of the January 8, 2013, meeting are also attached. LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. February 5, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Subsequently, the Planning Commission, at its regular meeting of January 22, 2013, adopted Resolution No. 1867 to formally approve the applications and project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT / CEQA PROCESS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department prepared the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that are attached to the Planning Commission staff report for the proposed project. The project will have less- than - significant impacts with mitigation measures for the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation /Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. A detailed review is included in the Initial Study, and the mitigation measures have been added as conditions of approval for the project. The Initial Study /Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review for a period of 20 days (December 17, 2012, to January 7, 2013) as required by CEQA. CEQA also requires the lead agency (City of Arcadia) to specify the location and custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the lead agency's decision is based. These documents were made available at Arcadia City Hall and at the Arcadia Public Library. Because this project is being called up for City Council review without any particular issue being raised; particularly with regard to the environmental documentation, the Notice of Intent to Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration has not been recirculated or republished in a local newspaper. Should the City Council make any changes to the project that would result in a substantial revision of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the documents are required to be recirculated and re- noticed for a new 20 -day public review period, after which another public hearing would be held for adoption of the revised Mitigated Negative Declaration and /or Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PUBLIC NOTICE Public hearing notices for this City Council review were mailed on Thursday, January 24, 2013, to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property — see the radius map attached to the Planning Commission staff report. For the January 8, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, public hearing notices for this project were mailed on Thursday, December 13, 2012, to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 300 feet of the subject property, and pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in the Arcadia Weekly on Monday, December 17, 2012, LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. February 5, 2013 Page 3 of 4 including the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, which was also filed with the L.A. County Recorder's Office for the required 20 -day posting on December 13, 2012. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed project will not have any direct fiscal impact on the City's resources. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission's actions to conditionally approve the project, and to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration by adopting the attached Resolution No. 6858: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AFFIRMING THE ACTIONS OF THE ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 12 -03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -18, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -29, AND MODIFICATION NO. MP 12 -10, FOR THREE NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 64,255 SQUARE FEET, TWO RESTAURANTS WITHIN THE NEW BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,600 SQUARE FEET, AND A NEW FOUR -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 161 COLORADO PLACE. Approved: Dominic Laurette City Manager Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1867 January 8, 2013 Planning Commission Staff Reports with Attachments: Exhibit A Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Exhibit B Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Air Quality Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Submittal Letter & Conclusions and Recommendations LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. February 5, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Cover Sheet & Owner's Certification Greenhouse Gas Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Noise Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis Cover Sheet and Conclusions & Supplemental Memorandum Exhibit C Lot Line Adjustment Plans Exhibit D Right -of -Way Dedication Plan Exhibit E Photos of the subject site and surrounding properties Exhibit F Architectural Plans Exhibit G Radius Map Minutes of the January 8, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting City Council Resolution No. 6858 7� aM LILA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 2 of 16 LLA 12-03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & ts/IIP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 3 of 16 The applicant is requesting the following four Modifications from the City's Zoning Code: LLA 12-03, CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, & NIP 12-10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado Pl, January 8, 2013 Page 4 of 16 an obstacle between the buildings and the Huntington Drive/Colorado Place corridor, and avoids the unattractive, "sea-Of-parking" appearan I ce typical of older strip commercial development. A detailed conceptual landscape plan has been designed by Wieneke & Associates for the entire site. New landscaping is; proposed around the perimeter of the office buildings, parking structure, and surface parking lots. The new trees bet�466- the parking, structure and th& adjaceritj"idential properties will be 36-irich box trees to improve the� pffepti)mness of the Ian sc, d, app screening. The San Rafael/Huntington Drive intersection was not selected for analysis becausz this intersection will be limited to westbound/right-turn and southbound/right-turn movements (i.e., eastbound1left-turn and southbound/left-turn movements will be *recluded in the future by a raised median), LLA12-O3. CUP 11-18, ADR11-29.&K8P12-18 125 W. Huntington Dr. 8 181 Colorado P1. January 8.2O13 Page 7 of 16 Based on the Traffic impact Analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 147 additional vehicle: trips during the AM peak hours (7:00 6.m. to 9:00 a.m.), 186 trips during the PM -. • 11' p.m. to • i1 • and 1,866 t6 os on • Section weekday. It was concluded, that the proposed project will not create signifi cant traffic impacts at any of the studied intOrsections, and the Ievpls�f-service,(LO$) will not NMI- 9275.1.2 of r .• .i Municipal Code requires that for . Conditional P61rrhitlo be granted, it must be found that all of the following prerequisite conditions t be -• That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. In the C-2, General Commercial Zones, a building with more than 20,000 square- feet of gross floor area and within 100 feet of residentially--zoned property is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9263.6.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. And, restaurant uses are allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9275.1.53.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 8 of 16 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed development is a commercial use that is consistent with the Gene Plan Land Use Designation of the site. The proposed project satisfies each prerequisite condition. 14-17, MAI I 'It LLA 12-03, CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, & MP 12-10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado Pl. January 8, 2013 Page 9 of 16 RECOMMENDAMN LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 10 of 16 8. The Applicant shall coordinate with South California Edison to install a streetlig on Colorado Place and on San Juan Drive, with underground circuits per Ci roposed lo 'o Standard 805-1. The cati n shall be reviewed and approved by th City Engineer or designee. LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 11 of 16 i /® �:.. ;i. ••.. ._ • _ a •.,. _.,.. _i _,i. _ ._, -. a, • -- 21. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 12 of 16 include, but are not limited to protection of all finished graded slopes from erosion using � such techniques as erosion control rnaffing and hydroseeding or other suitable MeasUre& ek-'B. When working I near catch basins, each basin shall be covered and sealed prior to the start of construction. 30. The Applicant shall prepare and submit 'a final'drainage plan to the City for approval by the City. The drainage plan shall include post development designs that ensure adequate capacity to accommodate and prevent flooding of the site and adjacent roadways. 31. Construction Timing — Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7-00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction equipment maintenance shall, be limited to the same hours. LLA12-03 CUP i148.ADR11-2B &K8P12-1O 125Ni Huntington Dr. &1G1 Colorado Pl. January 0.2D13 Page 14of10 •� of •, • it • - - ° ` • � .. • ..,' •, •. °. • •' � • a '- 'e ':• •' i ! . - •`" • ability 36. The developer shall prepare a haul route plan for trucks hauling earth or construction materials fi�om the project site to where this material �vill beAs66sed. The, plan sh4� �lbe� iev� and, approved by the Arcadia Engineering Services Division before a g I rading or building permit is issued by the City, and the City has the s limit any hauling activity to off-peak hours. LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI, January 8, 2013 Page 15 of 16 Attachments: Exhibit A Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Exhibit B Initial Study and Litigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Air Quality Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Submittal Letter & Conclusions and Recommendations Standard Urban Stormwater litigation Plan Cover Sheet & Owner's Certification Greenhouse Gas Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Noise Study Cover Letter & Supplemental Memorandum Traffic Impact Analysis Cover Sheet and Conclusions & Supplemental Memorandum Exhibit C Lot Line Adjustment Plans Exhibit D Right-of-Way Dedication Plan Exhibit E Photos of the subject site and surrounding properties Exhibit F Architectural Plans Exhibit G Radius Map LLA 12 -03, CUP 11 -18, ADEN 11 -29, & MP 12 -10 125 W. Huntington Dr. & 161 Colorado PI. January 8, 2013 Page 16 of 16 DATE: January 8, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FRONT: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Additional Conditions of Approval for LLA 12 -03; CUP 11 -18; ADR 11 -29; and MP 12 -10 39. The three loading spaces connected to the driveway aisle off of Colorado Place shall be relocated, and the six parking spaces connected to this driveway aisle shall be eliminated. The new location of the loading spaces shall be approved by the Development Services Director or designee. A Parking Modification shall be approved as part of this application to accommodate all necessary revisions to the driveway aisles. 40. The proposed driveway aisle and approach off of Colorado Place shall be widened and revised to accommodate two exit lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. n - REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8,2013 CALL TO ORDER — Chairman Chiao called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Council Chambers. laOT" om PRESENT: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone, Parrille and Chiao ABSENT: None Each Commissioner was provided a copy of a memo regarding additional conditions of approval for Item 1a and two handouts of photos relating to Item 1.b. In addition they each received a 710 Environmental Study handout from a Metro spokesperson. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ms. Catherine Padilla from Metro (L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) announced a series of meetings to be held locally on the five options under consideration in the 710 Environmental Study. She said these meetings are open to the public and she left some flyers for the City Hall lobby. a. Lot Line Adiustment No. LLA 12 -03; Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -18; Modification No. MP 12 -10; and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -29 Pacific Design Croup 125 W. Huntington Drive & 161 Colorado Place A Lot Line Adjustment to merge two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel; approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Zoning Modifications, and Architectural Design Review to construct the following new buildings at the subject site. The existing 60,811 square - foot, three -story office building will remain. Building 1: A 163,468 square -foot, four -level parking structure Building 2: A 19,995 square -foot, three -story medical office building Building 3: A 19,441 square -foot, three -story medical office building with 3,000 square feet of ground floor restaurant area Building 4: A 24,819 square -foot, three -story general office building with 1,600 square -feet of ground floor restaurant area The four (4) requested Modifications from the City's Zoning Code for this project are: 1 -8 -13 1. To allow the windows in the new buildings and openings in the parking structure to face the residential properties to the north (AMC Sec. 9263.2.6). 2. To allow five (5) designated loading spaces in lieu of 13 spaces required (AMC Sec. 9269.10). 3. To allow for a 7' -8" front yard setback for Building no. 2 and a 4' -2" front yard setback for Building no. 3 in lieu of the 35' -0" special setback along this block of Colorado Place (AMC Sec. 9320.11.2). 4. To allow two (2) trash enclosures to be placed within the required 20 -foot rear yard setback (i.e., from the north property line) at 8 -feet and 14 -feet (AMC Sec. 9263.6.6) Recommended Action: Approve Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12 -03; Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -18; Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -29; and Modification No. MP 12 -10, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution for adoption that incorporates the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, and the conditions of approval. Associate Planner, Tim Schwehr, presented the staff report. Chairman Chiao opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Mr. Ken Paddock, Pacific Design Group, represented the applicant. Chairman Chiao asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project. There were none. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Falzone to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to approve Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12 -03; Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -18; Modification No. MP 12 -10; and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -29 subject to the conditions in the staff report, including the two additional conditions presented by memo; and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution for adoption at the next meeting. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone Parrille and Chiao NOES: None 1 -8 -13 b. Appeal No. HOA 12 -03 —An Appeal of Denial of Homeowners' Association Application 530 N. Altura Rd. Mr. Philip K. Chung and Mrs. Aileen Chung, Property Owners An appeal to reconsider the Rancho Santa Anita (Lower Rancho) Residents' Association's Architectural Design Review Board Chairman's decision to deny a proposed composition roof material (CertainTeed Presidential Shake TL Triple Laminate Luxury Shingles) to reroof an existing 2,728 square -foot residence at the subject location. Recommended action: Uphold denial Associate Planner, Tom Li, presented the staff report. Chairman Chiao opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this appeal. Ms. Arlene Chung, property owner, spoke in support of her appeal. Chairman Chiao asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this appeal. Mr. Ernie Boehr, Architectural Review Board Chairman for the Rancho Santa Anita Residents' Association, spoke in opposition to the appeal. Chairman Chiao asked if the appellant would like to speak in rebuttal. Ms. Aileen Chung spoke in rebuttal. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Beranek to close the Public Hearing. Without objection the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to deny the appeal of the Homeowners' Association Architectural Review Board Chairman's denial of the proposed roofing material. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone, Parrille and Chiao NOES: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Minutes of the December 11, 2012 meeting Recommended action: Approve 111F:5 It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Beranek, and carried on roll call vote to approve Consent Calendar Item a. AYES: Commissioner Baerg, Beranek, Falzone, Parrille and Chiao DOES: None 71_"n 2111�113:7i1�T[*Z4I�PL+ � � 1,�f1±~ i7��lIi7'1►ii�iT 7 Councilman Wuo said that because of the large scope of the proposed medical complex project, he planned to call up the project for City Council review. There were none. Vice - Chairman Beranek reviewed the actions of the Modification Committee. Mr. Kasama advised the Commissioners to expect a light agenda for the next meeting. Chairman Chiao adjourned this meeting at 8:07 p.m. to January 22, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secr , PI nning Commission 1 -8 -13 WHEREAS, on November 11, 2011 and on June 11 and August 23, 2012, applications were filed by Pacific Design Group to merge two parcels into one parcel, and construct three new office buildings totaling 64,255 square feet, two restaurants 11!1111111�fl 1111111� ;jr: ;111111��Ij 111011MOTEr, M -. IMIgill ji� I 11 CNIIIIIIIll III PrIIIIIIIIII I,,'' 1�111 11�pliu iii'1111111111;;111111 • circulated for a period • 20 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 150727- M WHEREAS, the NOI and the public hearing notice were published on December ' 17, 2012, in the Arcadia Weekly, and sent to all the property owners and occupants WHEREAS, during the 20-day comment period, the City received letters from the following two responsible, trustee, and/or other regulatory agencies pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073: the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the State Department of Fish and Wildlife; and - 9 the proposed project that can be mitigated or avoided, and the mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval for the project to ensure that all impacts are less than significant; and WHEREAS, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will ensure that the project will not significantly impact the environment; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held • the Planning Commission on January 8, 2013, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve Lot Line Adjustment No, LLA 12-03, Conditional Use 111111, 1111 1 111 1 le 111; 11 Jill, iiiiii I', ZOUNINSTIV-7 Me No. 1867 incorporating the Commission's decision, specific determinations and findings, in Fill! P I i I ill 1 before the City Council was sent to the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on February 5, 2013, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. SECTION 1. The factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the February 5, 2013 staff report are true and correct, • 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the rA'oTtT 0T .Tire te 1707 • I R- ii II11:i1;1I;1 other existing uses at the site, or in the neighborhood. The proposed Zoning I Modifications are minor and will not have a significant impact • the surroundincs III 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. In the C-2, General Commercial Zones, a building with more than 20,000 square-feet of gross floor area and within 100 feet of residentially-zoned property is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9263.6.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. In addition, restaurant uses are allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9275.1.53.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. A Traffic Impact vehicle trip generation, anticipate distribution • vehicle trips, and analyze existing intersection/corridor operations. It was concluded that the proposed project will not ME Im r-I 8. The Applicant shall coordinate with Southern California Edison to install a streetlight • Colorado Place and on San Juan Drive with underground circuits per City Standard 805-1. The proposed location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or designee. • The Applicant shall close off the existing driveways that are not proposed to be used off of Colorado Place and construct new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 10. The Applicant shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with the following Best Management Practices: • Infiltration systems (e.g. infiltration trenches/swales, grass filter strips, porous pavement) • Bio-Filtration/Bio Retention Systems (e.g. Detention basins, bioswales, etc.) • Stormwater capture and Re-use (e.g. cisterns and rain barrels) • Mechanical/Hydrodynamic Units (e.g. fossil filters, catch basin inserts) • Combination of any items listed above 11. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy ppii�1�1� 1111IM11111 ini� 11, 1 - I -I in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans,submitted to and approved by ihe City; and shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this 59 Place shall be relocated, and the six parking spaces connected to this driveway aisle in in as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent residential uses). A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will line-up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction. 23. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 24. Soil Treatment. Construction contractors shall treat all graded and excavated the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or En periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressarits, to prevent excessive I 26. R• Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop A clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour • greater, as measured continuously over a r ur period). 27. Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on-site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent streets and roads. 28. A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable If active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA") and/or California Fish and Game code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater • lesser depending • the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined • the biologist and/or applicable regulatory agency Clearing and/or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second I nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those no ®� 2® lI'1111111 111111��ljl lllll�� 1111,1111111 illillirlippillill "1, 1111111111111111111111 11111111,, construction materials from the project site to where this material will be disposed. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Arcadia Engineering Services Division before a grading or building permit is issued by the City, and the City has the ability to limit any hauling activity to off-peak hours. 39. The developer shall notify the City at least seven (7) days in advance of the M approval by the City. This study shall be used to determine the adequacy of the sewer system and the required fair-share contribution for this project toward the sewer improvement project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer shall be required to construct the necessary improvements if the area study concludes the project will result in the sewer capacity being exceeded. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of I 2013. ATTEST: City Clerk Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 11 m Mayor of the City of Arcadia RESOLUTION NO. 1867 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 12 -03; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 11 -18; ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 11 -29; AND MODIFICATION NO. MP 12 -10 FOR THREE NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 64,255 SQUARE FEET, TWO RESTAURANTS WITHIN THE NEW BUILDINGS TOTALING 4,600 SQUARE FEET, AND A NEW FOUR -LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 161 COLORADO PLACE. WHEREAS, on November 11, 2011; June 11, 2012; and August 23, 2012, applications were filed by Pacific Design Group to merge two parcels into one parcel, and construct three new office buildings totaling 64,255 square feet, two restaurants within the new buildings totaling 4,600 square feet, and a new four -level parking structure at 125 W. Huntington Drive & 161 Colorado Place, Development Services Department Case Nos. Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12 -03; Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -18; Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -29; and Modification No. MP 12- 10; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study. Accordingly, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were prepared for this project and considered a part of this review and approval process; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Negative Declaration was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on December 13, 2012, and circulated for a period of 20 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. The NOI and the public hearing notice were published on December 17, 2012, in the Arcadia Weekly, and sent to all the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, during the 20 -day comment period, the City received two letters from the following responsible, trustee and other regulatory agencies pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073: County Sanitation District and Department of Fish and Wildlife; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies impacts associated with the proposed project that can be mitigated or avoided, and the mitigation measures are included in the project conditions of approval to ensure that all impacts are less than significant. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) ensures that the project will not significantly impact the environment; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2013, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated January 8, 2013, are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. A commercial office development and restaurants are consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations of the site and will not conflict with the other existing uses at the site, or in the neighborhood. The proposed Zoning -2- 1867 Modifications are minor and will not have a significant impact on the surrounding properties. An Initial Study was prepared to determine if there would be any potential impacts from the proposed project. A detailed review is included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, traffic study, air quality study, noise study, greenhouse gas study, lighting and photometric light analysis, load calculations for the sewer system, and the Traffic Impact Analysis. With 23 mitigation measures incorporated into the project, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. In the C -2, General Commercial Zones, a building with more than 20,000 square -feet of gross floor area and within 100 feet of residentially -zoned property is allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9263.6.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. And, restaurant uses are allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit per Section 9275.1.53.5 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. Based on the proposal, the projected parking availability, and the on -site circulation, the site is adequate for the proposed development. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG) to forecast peak hour vehicle trip generation, anticipate distribution of vehicle trips, and analyze existing -3- 1867 intersection /corridor operations. It was concluded that the proposed project will not create significant traffic impacts at any of the studied intersections, that the levels -of- service (LOS) will not decrease, and that the adjacent streets are adequate for the type of traffic that is to be generated by the proposed project. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed development is a commercial use that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site. 6. That pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared for the proposed development, and that the project will have less- than - significant impacts with mitigation measures for the following areas: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation /Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 12 -03; Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -18; Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11 -29; and Modification No. MP 12 -10 to merge two parcels into one parcel and construct three new office buildings totaling 64,255 square feet, with two restaurants within the new buildings totaling 4,600 square feet, and a new four -level parking structure at 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lot consolidation of the subject lots must be recorded through a Certificate of Compliance by the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office for the proposed development. -4- 1867 2. There shall be no hospitals, urgent care clinics, or emergency services permitted under this Conditional Use Permit. 3. Trash enclosure no. 3 (proposed at the northeast corner of the site at 8' -0" from the north property line) shall be relocated outside the required 20' -0" rear yard setback. The new location shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director, or designee. Trash enclosure no. 2 (proposed within the required 20' -0" rear yard setback) shall not be used for the disposal of any restaurant waste. 4. The on -site restaurants shall be limited to business hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., every day. 5. No live music or entertainment is approved under this Conditional Use Permit, and any live music, entertainment, karaoke, etc. shall require a separate Conditional Use Permit. 6. The shrubs that are located immediately adjacent to both sides of the Colorado Place driveway, and the western -most tree (i.e., the tree located immediately east of the subject driveway) shall be removed. The shrubs located adjacent to the existing monument sign and easterly driveway (i.e. the monument sign that is located in front of the existing Worley Parson's building entrance) shall be lowered or removed so as to provide a clear line of sight in compliance with the City's driveway visibility requirements. 7. An additional roadway dedication is required on Colorado Place. The developer shall contact the Engineering Division for the specific dimensions of the dedication. The existing monument sign shall be removed from its current location prior to accepting the dedication. -5- 1867 8. The Applicant shall coordinate with South California Edison to install a streetlight on Colorado Place and on San Juan Drive with underground circuits per City Standard 805 -1. The proposed location shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or designee. 9. The Applicant shall close off the existing driveways that are not proposed to be used off of Colorado Place and construct new curb, gutter, and sidewalk. 10. The Applicant shall submit a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and comply with the following Best Management Practices: • Infiltration systems (e.g. infiltration trenches /swales, grass filter strips, porous pavement) • Bio- Filtration /Bio Retention Systems (e.g. Detention basins, bioswales, etc.) • Stormwater capture and Re -use (e.g. cisterns and rain barrels) • Mechanical /Hydrodynamic Units (e.g. fossil filters, catch basin inserts) • Combination of any items listed above 11. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the facilities or structures may be subject to required issuance of permits and having fully detailed plans submitted to the City for plan check review and approval. 12. The uses approved by these applications shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and approved; and -6- 1867 shall be subject to periodic inspections, after which the provisions of this approval may be adjusted after due notice to address any adverse impacts to the adjacent streets, rights -of -way, and /or the neighboring businesses, residents, or properties. 13. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the on -site businesses. 14. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and /or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and /or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 15. Approval of these applications shall not become effective unless the property owner(s), applicant(s), and /or restaurant owner(s) and operator(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 16. The three loading spaces connected to the driveway aisle off of Colorado Place shall be relocated, and the six parking spaces connected to this driveway aisle -7- 1867 shall be eliminated. The new location of the loading spaces shall be approved by the Development Services Director or designee. A Parking Modification shall be approved as part of this application to accommodate all necessary revisions to the driveway aisles. 17. The proposed driveway aisle and approach off of Colorado Place shall be widened and revised to accommodate two exit lanes to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures is detailed in the MMRP. 18. The lights within the parking structure shall be placed on a dimmable switch and the lights on each level shall be dimmed from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., every day to avoid disturbances to the adjacent residential uses. The Development Services Director or designee shall also review the parking lot lights and determine which ones are to be turned -off during non - business hours. The developer and the City shall assess the brightness from the lights prior to occupancy of any part of the project. 19. The flood lights or area lighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed so as to avoid disturbance to the adjacent residential uses. 20. Low -VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant is to use low -VOC architectural coating for all buildings, including the proposed parking structure. At a minimum, all architectural coatings shall comply with the most recent standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113 — Architectural Coatings. In addition, architectural coatings should not be applied to more than 10,500 square feet of construction per day, including both interior and exterior surfaces. -8- 1867 21. On -site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. 22. Staging areas for heavy -duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent residential uses). A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will line -up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction. 23. Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 24. Soil Treatment. Construction contractors shall treat all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on -site roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and /or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least twice daily, preferably late in the morning and after work is done for the day. 25. Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors shall monitor all graded and /or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. -9- 1867 26. No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one -hour period). 27. Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on -site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent streets and roads. 28. A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation activities that would occur during the nesting and breeding season for native bird species (typically March 1 through August 15). The survey area shall include all potential bird nesting areas within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to commencement of activities (e.g. grading). If active nests of bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and /or California Fish and Game code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist and /or applicable regulatory agency perm its. Clearing and /or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting attempt. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. -10- 1867 29. The construction crew shall be required to use Best Management Practices (BMPs) and standards to control and reduce erosion. These measures could include, but are not limited to protection of all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding or other suitable measures. 30. When working near catch basins, each basin shall be covered and sealed prior to the start of construction. 31. In accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541), if any construction, excavations, and new utility lines are proposed near or crossing existing high pressure pipelines, natural gas /petroleum pipelines, electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts, and other high priority lines, it is required that the owner /operator of the line(s) be notified and the locations of subsurface lines be identified prior to any ground disturbance for excavation. Coordination, approval, and monitoring by the owner /operator of the line would avoid damage to high priority lines and prevent the creation of hazards to the surrounding area. 32. The Applicant shall prepare and submit a final drainage plan to the City for approval by the City. The drainage plan shall include post development designs that ensure adequate capacity to accommodate and prevent flooding of the site and adjacent roadways. 33. Construction Timing — Construction activities shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. 34. Construction Equipment — If electrical service is available within 150 feet, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Internal combustion engines should be equipped with a muffler of a type recommended by the -11- 1867 manufacturer. No internal combustion engine shall be operated on the project site without the manufacturer - recommended muffler. All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and should be equipped with factory- recommended mufflers. Construction equipment that continues to generate noise that exceeds 70 dBA at the project boundaries should be shielded with a barrier that meets a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25. For all construction activity on the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains within levels allowed by the City of Arcadia noise standards. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and affected uses. 35. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise - sensitive receptors. When feasible, the construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction - related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors during all project construction. 36. The construction contractor shall limit haul truck activities to the same hours specified for construction. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass sensitive land uses or residences. 37. Neighbor Notification. The developer and its contractors shall provide notification to residential occupants adjacent to the project site at least 24 hours prior to initiation of construction activities that could significantly affect outdoor or indoor living areas. This notification shall include the anticipated hours and duration of construction and a description of noise reduction measures. The notification shall include a -12- 1867 telephone number for local residents to call to submit complaints associated with construction noise. The notification shall be posted on San Juan Drive, Santa Cruz Road, and San Rafael Road adjacent to the project site, and must be easily viewed from adjacent public areas. 38. The developer shall prepare a haul route plan for trucks hauling earth or construction materials from the project site to where this material will be disposed. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Arcadia Engineering Services Division before a grading or building permit is issued by the City, and the City has the ability to limit any hauling activity to off -peak hours. 39. The developer shall notify the City at least seven (7) days in advance of the beginning of any earth moving and or truck hauling activities on the site. The City shall assess the roadway conditions along the haul route and the developer shall be responsible for any damages caused to the route during the hauling activities. The developer shall be responsible for repairing any damages identified by the City prior to occupancy of any part of the project. 40. The existing sewer main on Colorado Place is considered deficient by the City's Public Works Services Department. A project is under consideration in the City's Capital Improvement Program for either Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 or 2015 -2016 to address the current situation. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer shall perform an area study to determine the impact the project will have on the capacity of the existing sewer system, and such study shall be subject to approval by the City. This study shall be used to determine the adequacy of the sewer system and the required fair -share contribution for this project toward the sewer improvement project. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the developer -13- 1867 shall be required to construct the necessary improvements if the area study concludes the project will result in the sewer capacity being exceeded. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the accompanying Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the proposed project at its regular meeting on January 8, 2013. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2013. ATTEST: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission -14- 1867 v' 125 W. Huntington Dr. & _�. 161 Colorado PI. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Submittal Letter : Conclusions Recommendations Certification Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan Cover Sheet & Owner's Greenhouse Gas Study Cover Letter & Supplemental - • • Impact Traffic Analysis • = r Sheet and Conclusions & Supplemental Memorandum I PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK z LL J cl i r I �q NU )i IlE,,: uj W w 11 It CL i r I �q NU )i MUNI MMSMIMTONV!�1� a tt k3;su 1i "C1P3 4�3S3AFd(KLU" iWVA I � e I i i ski �rz ,���;c w .�� �,.. s�� ua`r mgvwcxavmsw Maoi ars.Wwlrw r' %fir � IC!'a {i�Q JE�369 "i'�OQ�t�tld i1a $ G ��kj aa5s.�;g*wrn� eoau�rsb�dw,ssse+�avuo+[, "r'a�a 3`8"4 vmi ° mi iiwoj Cd 0A i1 d d 0MO s i 4 ��� ���� 1 r M.'' I a a M - I ME � M I M. A MIM -OR TWO NEW MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS, A GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING, AND FOUR-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE AT 161 COLORADO PLACE AND 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE (Lot Line Adjustment N, . LLA 12-03, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11 -17, Modification Permit No. MP 12-10, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 11-29) Pacific Design Group Ken Paddock, Senior Project Manager 18071 Irvine Boulevard Tustin, CA 92780 December 2012 - - - I _ _ - F Y IT. I i1i IT, City of Arcadia Contact Persons and Phone Number: Lisa Flores. Senior Planner — (626) 574-5445 and Tim Schwehr, Assistant Planner — (626) 574-5422 Project Location: 125 W. Huntington Drive & 161 Colorado Place A Lot Line Adjustment to merge two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel; approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Zoning Modifications, and Architectural Design Review to construct the following new buildings at the subject site. The existing 60,811 square-foot, three-story office building will remain. Building 1: A 163,468 square-foot, four-level parking structure Building 2: A 19,995 square-foot, three-story medical office building Building 3: A 19,441 square-foot, three-story medical office building with 3,000 square-feet of ground floor restaurant area Building 4: A 24,819 square-foot, three-story general office building with 1,600 square-feet of ground floor restaurant area, Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 additional westbound transition lane from Huntington Drive to Colorado Place. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. F-] Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources [:] Air Quality � Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils F-] Greenhouse Gas E] Hazards & Hazardous � Hydrology / Water Quality Emissions Materials E] Land Use / Planning E] Mineral Resources F-1 Noise F-1 Population / Housing ❑ Public Services F-] Recreation Transportation /Traffic E] Utilities / Service Systems F� Mandatory Findings of Significance —Tnif,,[ Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 DETERMINATION (To • completed • the Lead Agency): • the basis • this initial evaluation: F I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. FJ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION wil be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required, Date City of Arcadia For 3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacf'entries when the determination is made, e6 EIR is required. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 16063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Standard Conditions (SC) are existing regulations that are imposed by the City and compliance with these regulations is largely the responsibility of the project applicant/development. The SCs are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. Rather, they are expected to be implemented as a matter of course by the City. Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the attached table has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to identify the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will be implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been implemented. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 Issues: AESTHETIOS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Then Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El 11 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 M4104 MWIMIN I rinffl�� Pan U1 triv pfrijuca. A-2.- The food or area fighting needed for construction activities shall be placed and directed away so as to avoid any disturbance to the adjacent residential uses. IL AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, El or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area and contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Theretbre, the project would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ use, of a Williamson Act contract? There is no agricultural use zoning or a Williamson Act contract in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the above impacts. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 Less Than Significant Potentially With - Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or, cause El 0 rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public timberland (as defined. by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned' Timberland Production has defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? The City of Arcadia has no timberland or Timberland Production land, and has no land zoned for forest land. There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia, and the project will not convert farmlands to non- agricultural use. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion El M of forest land to non- forest use? The proposed development will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use: e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ [] El R nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? There Is no farmland In the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non - agricultural user fill. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project;' a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ 0 El applicable air quality plan? The project site Is located within the South Coast Air Basin and is governed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAOMD). According to the guidelines and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQM ), a project must conform to the local General Plan and must not result or exceed the City's projected population growth forecast, The proposed project Is consistent with planned development in the City of Arcadia In that it would not generate additional population growth. Therefore, the project would have no Impact on attainment of air quality or congestion management plants. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ® Z ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Page 7 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, AbR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Less Than Significant No Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -00, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With . Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact square feet of construction per day, including both interior and exterior surfaces. AQ-2: On-site equipment shaft not be left idling when not in use. AQ-3.- Staging area's for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent residential uses). A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will be line-up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net F-1 -Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The majority of the project-related operational emissions would be due to vehicle trips to and from the site. The Estimated Operational Emissions (Table 5) in the Air Quality Study prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (August 2012): indicates the project-generated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROO, CO Sox, PM10, or P6tl2.5. Therefore, the projects regional air quality impacts, including impacts related to criteria pollutants, sensitive receptors and violations of air quality standards would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 9 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LI-A 12-03, & MP 12-10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project will involve vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, and tree removal that could result in the direct loss of active bird nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds. With the following mitigation'measure, it would reduce any adverse impacts to less than significant level B10-1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to all construction or site preparation activitles that would occur during the nesting arid -breeding season of native bird species (typically March I through August ?5). The tu , rivey area shall include all potential bird nestitig-ar6as within 200 feet of any disturbance. The survey shall be conducted at least two weeks prior to commencement of activities (e.g. grading). - If active nests of bird species protected by the MIOTA andlot California Fish and Game Code (which, together, apply to all native nesting bird species) are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary buffer may be greater or lesser depending on the bird species and type of disturbance, as determined by the biologist andlor applicable regulatory agency permits. Clearing and /or construction within temporarily fenced areas shall be postponed or halted until juveniles have fledged and there is no evidence of a second nesting, attempt. The Biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no Inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? There are no designated riparian: habitats or other sensitive natural communities within the City of Arcadia. The project site is located within an area that Is not proximate to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above Impacts. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? There are no federally protected wetlands within the City of Arcadia. The project site is not proximate to sensitive biological resources. Therefore, the project will not have the above Impacts. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ 1:1 ❑ 2 There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ 2 protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 Less Than Significant Potentially With ' Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed site does not contain any protected oak trees and will not encroach into the protected zone of any oak trees on adjoining properties. Therefore it will not conflict w th the Cl y' Oak Tree Preservation ordinance. No other tree preservation policies or ordinances exist. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? There are no adopted habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Conservation Community Plans, or other approved habitat conservation plan within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project will not have the above impacts. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the El significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? The proposed development would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 since there are no cultural resources on the subject site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? The proposed development will not cause a substantial adverse change since there are no historical or archaeological resources on the subject. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ® ® ❑ Z paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The subject not known to i paleontological or ,: a, geological r ..- Therefore, the project will In no way destroy a unique paleontological reso urce, site, or unique geologic feature. The right-of-way Is surrounded by developed properties and located in an urbanized d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed site does not contain any known human remains. As such, there will be no disturbance to any human remains. 8 is _ Y' i` . a - • , r -: -. a) Expose people or structures to potential ® ❑ substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as El 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? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration' Page 11 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -28, LLA 12.03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact incorporated Impact Impact Hi) Seismic - related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ® ❑ Initial Study/Mitigated Negafive Declarafion Page 12 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Issues: c) 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 poi a. The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project site is a flat site and will hot In an on- or off -mite landslide. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in El Table 18 1 B cif the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential. Therefore, there will be no substantial risks to life or property, e) Have soils incapable of adequately El supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The project site would connect with the sewer system, and would not require septic tanks or other alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, there would be no impacts. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project; a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ R ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ® ® ® El regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? No impact ads: The City of Arcadia has adopted policies under the City/'s General plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2000. According to the Greenhouse Gas Study, prepared by pincon Consultants, Inc. (August, 2012), the increase of GHG emissions associated with the project will be approximately 2,211 metric tons C 02E per ,year, which does not exceed SCAQMD's recommended 3,000 MT CO2E per year threshold. The proposed project does not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project - specific impact through a direct influence to climate change. Therefore, the project's contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Vlll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or El El the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the environment through reasonably , foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact S The City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively flat and expected to be stable. The project site is a flat site and will hot In an on- or off -mite landslide. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in El Table 18 1 B cif the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The subject site consists of alluvial soil that is in the low to moderate range for expansion potential. Therefore, there will be no substantial risks to life or property, e) Have soils incapable of adequately El supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The project site would connect with the sewer system, and would not require septic tanks or other alternative wastewater systems. Therefore, there would be no impacts. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project; a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ R ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or ® ® ® El regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? No impact ads: The City of Arcadia has adopted policies under the City/'s General plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2000. According to the Greenhouse Gas Study, prepared by pincon Consultants, Inc. (August, 2012), the increase of GHG emissions associated with the project will be approximately 2,211 metric tons C 02E per ,year, which does not exceed SCAQMD's recommended 3,000 MT CO2E per year threshold. The proposed project does not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project - specific impact through a direct influence to climate change. Therefore, the project's contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Vlll. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or El El the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 the environment through reasonably , foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated impact Impact (a -) Ali new development within the City shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RC RA) on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, Ond 'dOp ®sal of hazardous waste. The proposed project must also comply with California Accidehi6i Release Pravondon Program (CalARP) to prevent the accidental release of regulated toOd and flammable substances, and South Coast stir Quality Management District's (SCAOUD's) Ruled % and h'lir/, "which include regulations for toxic and hazardous air pollutant emissions. because this prpjec I, would involve new construction, excavations, and new utility lures, the fol working in the project area? The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There Would not be any ' ort related safety hazards for people airp working at the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts. f]l For a project within the viGinity,of a private ❑ 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There is no private airstrip near the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts. g) Impair implementation of or physically 13 El El interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not impair implementation or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland F-1 fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12 -1F Less Than Significant Potentially With - Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No e) For a project located within an airport land Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El 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? The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There Would not be any ' ort related safety hazards for people airp working at the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts. f]l For a project within the viGinity,of a private ❑ 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? There is no private airstrip near the project site. As such, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts. g) Impair implementation of or physically 13 El El interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Project will not impair implementation or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, there would be no impacts. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland F-1 fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12 -1F Less Than Significant With Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact I� iy point Agency 11, cities b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ [] ❑ 0 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)? The project is subject to NPDES requirements and will be designed and constructed to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and therefore no impact will result from this project. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage [] ® ❑ ❑ pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Issues: d) Less Than Significant Potentially With ' Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact El 10 El El would result in flooding oh® or off -site? The discussion provided in c) above adequately discusses surface water pollution impacts from the project° The project would result in less than slgnif►cant impacts with mitigation. Mitigation 'measure HYD-1 would adequately address any surface water pollution. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned El Z storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? The discussion provided in a) above adequately discuss runoff from the project. The state and federal requirements for the preparation of the aforementioned plans would reduce potential impacts to a loss than signiffcant level assuming Implementation of these plans. No additional mitigation' measures are necessary, f) Otherwise substantially degrade water E ❑ 0 quality? The additional volumes of storm water runoff created by the project would be negligible and would not significantly impact water quality. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard El El area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El 0 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? Initial StudYl Mitigated Negative Deciaration Page IS of 27 File Igo: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 There are no known mineral resources on the subject site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important; mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The subject site is not desig=nated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above Impact. XIle NOISE. Would the project result Ira: a) Exposure -,of persons to or generation of noise 0 le" vels in excess of standards established in ED the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With � Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. MINERAL L RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known El El El R mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state"? There are no known mineral resources on the subject site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important; mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The subject site is not desig=nated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above Impact. XIle NOISE. Would the project result Ira: a) Exposure -,of persons to or generation of noise 0 le" vels in excess of standards established in ED the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact incorporated impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ❑ ❑ [ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The discussion provided in a) above adequately discuss temporary noise from the proposed project, and the proposed mitigation measures N-1 through -3 will result in a less than significant, impact. e) For a project located within an airport lend ❑' EJ use plan or, where such a'plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airports would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airports Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ` Page 20 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18; ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 Less Than Significant Potentially With � Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people 01 residing or Working in the project area to excessive noise levels? There Is no private airstrip near the project site. The project would not change the uses of the surrounding site and would not impact the noise levels for people residing or working in the project area. X1111. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? The project is located within an existing urban area. No new residential is proposed. There is no evidence that the new businesses that will occupy the site will not induce any significant population growth in the area. No significant infrastructure upgrades or extend the roards are required as part of this project. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Development of the proposed project is limited to the boundaries of the commercial site and would not result in demolition of any housing. No impacts to existing house would occur. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, El necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Development of the proposed project is limited to the boundaries of the subject site and would not result in demolition of any housing. NO displacement impact would occur. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical ❑ ❑ ❑ impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ Police protection? ❑ Schools? ❑ Parks? ❑ Other public facilities? Initial StudYlIVIltigated Negative Declaration Page 21 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood El and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed development will not result in a significant increase In the demand for existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Physical impacts to recreation facilities are usually associated with development of new housing and population in- migration and growth. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ® ® ❑ ED recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed above, the proposed development does not Include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ® ® N ❑ policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LUa 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 b) Conflict with an applicable congestion El management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ` ' Page 23 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12-03, & MP 12 -10 will be less titan significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ❑ The proposed development will comply with all of the City's requirements for emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would be consistent with policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the applicant has proposed to install new bilge racks on site in accordance with the City's bike parking requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the policies, playas, or programs and no mitigation measures would be necessary. XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ z Less Than ❑ ❑ 2 Significant ❑ Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns; including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial will be less titan significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ® ❑ The proposed development will comply with all of the City's requirements for emergency access. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit,, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would be consistent with policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the applicant has proposed to install new bilge racks on site in accordance with the City's bike parking requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the policies, playas, or programs and no mitigation measures would be necessary. XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ z ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24. of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLH 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 m EM =1 c) Require or result in the construction of new ❑ 19 13 storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? The City's Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed SUS14P and development, and determined the impacts will be less than significant d) Have sufficient water supplies available to El 19 El serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination, the Lead Agency shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910, et. seq. (SB 610), arid the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25 of 27 File No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LI-A 12-03, & MP 12-10 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department provides water service' to the local area. The Department obtains water from two sources: groundwater and imported water. The department obtains groundwater from the Main Sari Gabriel and (Raymond Groundwater Basins. The City obtains water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWQ) from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. ` `MI' D forecasts that it will be able to meet the region's water needs through 2030. According to Arcadia public Works Department, there will be no major impact to the water system. Therefore, the impacts are to, as than signitecartt. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to .serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing The proposed . development would not generate a significant increase in area population or otherwise induce new population growth. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts to the wastewater treatment capacity. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? The City of Arcadia does Plot contract with a particular land fill Howvever, the trash generated from a project is often taken to the Puente lolls Landfill in Whittier. the Puente Hills Landfill has sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs.' As a result, the project- related impacts to landfill capacity would be leas than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ® ❑ and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed development will not violate any federal, state or local statues and regulations relating to solid waste. ■. ;• r s, a) Does the project have the potential to ❑ ❑ ED ❑ degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Tf a proposed use is consistent with the General flan, and does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wwildlife species since it ps located in a fully - developed area. initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 of 27 Pile No: CUP 11 -18, ADR 11 -29, LLA 12 -03, & MP 12 -10 b) Does the project have impacts that are ^Fl El = [l individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ba? considerable" means that the incremental effects ofa project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, theaffeot of other current project, and the effects of probable future Development of the proposed project would not generate an increase in population or otherwise induce new population growth. The project is not part of any larger project and would not result in any future development or infrastructure. The issues relevant to this property are very localized and largely confined to the immediate vicinity of the construction site. Because the project would not increase environmental impacts the incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant. c) Does the project have environmental Fl effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed Im the relevant sections of this Initial Study, the project would not result in any significant permanent impacts. Additionally, tal eftcts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirec�� t umm��iga&mdmx�e��eimpacts have been &ueo�y�'my�wrthe project. - - Source References 1. City mf Arcadia General Plan, adopted November 2010 2. City ofArcadia Land Use and Zoning Map, adopted December 7, 201 3. Lighting, Photometric Light Analysis and of E}erdco' pages E-1 through E-4 of the Architectural Plans, dated November 27.2012 4. South Coast Air Quality Management District ASCAQK8D\. Rules and Regulations, 2005. 5. Air Quality Study, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., August 2012; Supplemental Memorandum, dated November 27.2U12 8. Greenhouse Gas Study, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., August 2012; Supplemental Memorandum, dated November 27.2012 7. Memorandum from Arcadia Public Works Department — Sewer Capacity, dated October 31'2012 8. Preliminary SUSMP Calculations prepared by Lin Consulting Inc., dated May 21, 2012 8. City mfArcadia Urban Water Management Plan, 2011 10. Federal Emergency Management Agency (Community Number #065014), dated September 7, 1984. 11. City of Arcadia, Noise Regulations, Chapter 6, Article IV, of City of Arcadia Municipal Code 12. Noise Study, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. dated October 2012; Supplemental Memorandum dated November 27.2012 13. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by I-Inscott Law & Greenspan, August 15, 2012; Supplemental Trip Generation Assessment, dated November 27.2O12 14. South Coast Air Quality Management District (8[>AOK8D).2UO5. California Environmental Quality Act Air Handbook 15. South Coast Air Quality Management District (GCAOYWD). Rules and Regulations, 2005. � ' Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27 of 27 File No: CUP 11-18, ADR 11-29, ILLA 12-03, & MP 12-10 THiS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Library. I - This program also includes Standard Conditions (SC). They are existing regulations that are imposed by the City, County, State, federal agencies or special districts and compliance with these regulations is largely the responsibility of the project applicant/developer. The SCs are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. Rather, they are expected to be implemented as a matter of course by the City and other regulatory agencies. Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a MMRP to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the MMRP has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to identify the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will be implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been implemented. The Applicant is requesting approval for, • A Lot Line Adjustment to merge two (2) parcels into one (1) parcel, approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Zoning Modifications, and Architectural Design Review to construct the following new buildings at the subject site. The existing 60,811 square-foot, three-story office building will remain. Building 1: A 163,468 square-foot, four-level parking structure Building 2: A 19,995 square-foot, three-story medical office building Building 3: A 19,441 square-foot, three-story medical office building with 3,000 square-feet of ground floor restaurant area Building 4: A 24,819 square-foot, three -story general office building with 1,600 square-feet of ground floor restaurant area The four (4) requested Modifications from the City's Zoning Code for this project are: 1. To allow the windows in the new buildings and openings in the parking structure to face the residential properties to the north (AMC Sec. 9263, 2.6). 2. To allow five (5) designated loading spaces in lieu of 13 spaces required (AMC Sec. 9269.10). 3. To allow for a 7'8" front yard setback for Building no. 2 and a 4' -2" front yard setback for Building no, 3 in lieu of the 35' O*" special setback along this block of Colorado Place (AMC Sec. 9320.11.2). 4. To alloW-two (2) trash enclosures to be placed within the required 20-foot rear yard setback (i.e., from the north property line) at 8-feet and 14-feet (AMC Sec. 9263.6.6). Additionally, the project includes a City right- of-way dedication of 3, 192 square feet, thereby reducing the lot area to 200,085 square feet. The right-of-way dedication is requested by the I City's Engineering Services as part of a future traffic improvement protect to add an additional westbound transition lame from Huntington Drive to Colorado Place. This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on the following pages that correspond to the final Mitigated Negative Declaration, (MN®) for the project. The matrix lists each mitigation 'measure by environmental topic and indicates the frequency of monitoring and the responsible monitoring entity. Mitigation measures may be shown in submittals and may be checked only once, or they may require monitoring periodically during and /or after coistruation and grading. Once a mitigation 'measure is complete, the po resnsible monitoring entity shall date and initial the corresponding cell and comment on the effectiveness of the mitigation measure. Wherever the term "project applicant is used in the MMP, it shall be deemed to include each and all successors in interest of the project applicant. 4 w; R. l„ V _ 'p p C o o .a •a N iQ •� ® Q'� EU d al CL o V o to (U .S2 E® v c a C+-+ ca .v 0 ID p �7 I.-Co cD a1 — 0 C°E U 0U) tm E � 0 32 m c a O O ` m g 0 'L 0.— 0) 0 a 16 G g O C C -0 c .4 CD � ct C m U � Q. 45 cn crj U m C C C C LM C C 'V) C 0 ® 0 O � O O c o � o g c Co �.. 0 Q0CL a� £z O a) <C7 h�-C� �4O °,O 5: (D ® oask;N r- a) �-d o M L- m a m0 r - >o �Ewo,®ca) .y �'�0 to CD co Co a ro= y 0 C C °C 0 0 � C o D 0 -Ec n 0 E � c v� � v m w co � ®a �® c CL SSA nCCU C, , ow to ® o0° Lo °0 00 0 o0 ai ° R 0 E v E > o o v v 0 o Ca 4- m o 1� o •- CL C a� >0V '� oc a -- a � 10 o'n_ r c� co c rE 9 E >, == —?= ® V Co p M e�a,�wU� CD o ar co E °-ai E ®ia0) 1 C CD Ua sctrCDM(D0 -�cva� �� eE �o -o as .0c = , E 0®(D pia co co ' a� c` �,� o`= cu Q Q c :El c�a d5 C 0 w 6 0 "' � U� ®> E ro� -C C 'a 0 Z O ui 0 � cd: 0 ai -0-a�C a3 O C- �- C a)U ®as °—o. cC- -- Of 0 889 < C. a3 c� �- � , , fn I— i] m Ca L6 C r � Q Q c�•a Q m cE �v oo _ o as o ca .0 V "Q ❑ cn �= i C 7 fA _ T: r or dfj 3. ® o _C :, 2 . 6 = O rn ° G� pis' p0 as Q Q a Q ®Q ❑ a ❑ C rytis o ix 0 0. , ® CD o C ❑ v ryQ ° Q . ' .❑ :3 ❑ (V G1 C= wCO UUJ V> 0) o U � L> L �9 t0 C O 0) M £ 0)0 co QS C (D i 0 E of In �' oC`� LJa) (D0Ce 1 ®o E U E FL U a.E v oL UFO U5 U 0ct.:F; UuJCl) 0 ,ate W� 0 �o C 04 0 ®mo r (D o o a) CL ai omc c °®asp �'� ° d� oCQ• v� oCU� o _ v o �� a °"g en Boas o� vc ID o roo 0 0 �� aic°a C: ®o w a) ®-a cn ❑ w a CL Co° °4 (DBE EQ a, CD0valN °oC aBa � sM w tna� o v ® ® oi �U 0 C CC Q is ❑ o c6 aM E fn 2 c (C � i (� S fN6 ® C o a E � Q ! C G o O ❑ 49 ❑ ❑ 0t)EU a yq o ,n fC - W ® 2p ❑ ❑ > cG Z (a5 N (r1 /U� Vi L" T W a5 L i CD �y 7 16 ❑ a) L S2 ED N �r� ❑ ® C-oo n o as p $ i ❑ E C L3 0 C9 a � a) C? 0 ® E L/ WC s a5 a� CD ® 0 C ❑ M_ c .0 CL ❑ ❑ co M CL ocaiio C Cfi�aC aG7 E C — L (» 0 NaC m ea o 0=CL o )6.0 0 en E en L 0 o =F to D Q 'L ._ ❑ ® C [6 ❑ L r� �8 C'5 "- us- yen oCC '� o��� ® � U ep s ❑ u C C6 N 0 E� � '� C -�; C o` •C a G (B 0 ❑ to C° .0 a) a m t6 s CLm D " t 6 t o 5 ar C C C ® ® i g C > m O ` ® ® 0 g > w ES C C X C7 a3 (U G (� U C •c y .co a CD 8 a� Cwm c o UAW 045 Jo. coL aQ �, s 91J0 c'o� 'oo� 6.E 00 C 0 0 C _ o0 Ch v ID .0 °' a v o °C a) r U) M 0 O CL a � W O 0.!R Co C L O C L o v ® wo w U CC - 0 f13 w C 0 vs t08 _ (Ci t8 a O O Vl 4? + QI L. t/j vj C O a) -0 w 0 W C -CD" � 0 ,C °C td! a) - {_ a3 t0 L w v$ C ® O C L M C 46 p M C O a5 2 12-0 ® � c E c v� ®" N ®� v, y,,9 N a�cns o ��- o ac c c� 3 E a� 0 C a� C C L M -0 o a o o .0 0 C ca s '� 0. a L rt� U M Q V O i7J N O y i O ca as Ca, cg O C) .0 C [B a) C7 fly co U c i 47 C 0 O w— �—� 9 0 O o O= C_O� C U C� a0 05 C� to X -0 aj ' + CU L o C va 0 = @ a- CII C �_ r. L� C a3 C ;C a3 r+ t6 cn a> v, �' o® `w - — �3ca2 -L 0 0) =iceE C �s 3° -a g L cm `` � us C -0 ` v a3 ® Q L E Lai ®�ocn C�L0Q) � CO) O w,�, ®®�cuC� � C7 ca °am ®�°CM0>c'�a ®o o' :0>w v , oc rya ��a�cs�c Cal ccca�ME coEIa' -000 ,rn ca -0 Z 8caas�o .S CD CL U C0 Gq Mol ar r c: (D 0 (D 0 LIS (D 062 J6. 0 a) 'a m 0.- (D cl) 0 w C a— w -a 0 tt 'a -0 to 0 z E C co a) (1) 0 75 4-: 75 ;E o L �,- 0-0 M a 0 C D CU LO U) C c 0 U) >1 (D E w 0 r U) m r-L 0 W 0 .d E 2 a7 o co ar = 0 CU 0 0 o .2 CD w co (a 0 0 a) 1-0— 0. (L) 0 -C CU (D- w 0) 0) 32 5 C 0 o (1) 2 20 w ' :5 0 o)0-0 0 co Me L c: a. Mar -0 (D 0 LU CD CO < a) .0 0 C 2 - 'in 0) 0 W.S 0 a) 0 0 CL (ice 0 ar r c: (D 0 (D 0 LIS (D 062 ;74 o o 0 CC (D (D 4) rU CL.. EO a) 0 C C cu r 0 o 0 co (D cu cu ci) b 4- -0 ar 0 (D C 0 m M cl) O is CL 0-0 im- E 2 if M >� _0 C a) 0 or '0 "0 0 —.!= 0 r- 'r- (U . LO _a 0 Cl M-0 N O aim , —a So 'C 2 .0 w m C Lo .0 0-0.— JE — co SO L- 0) 0 A U) - o -C CO O B L- O O a3 ca (D o 0) Lm p7 CCU E (D 0 (D 'o 12 0 m 0 L (D m. 0 0 CL 0 =5 E o Irm - cou - = CU E E.E E O A (D t5 K co E co a ' w E - '=- 0 C> 0 co CC v 0 0, m c: 0- 0 cu >' C E --6 E -E —0- am) a) co (D -0 (D 0 " (D -0 C CU (a 4- m 4- cm 00 a) 0 C (D th v; o Q>sw 0) 0 4-- 8 2 0•-o C w 0) >, L) 0 a) c: L.- ar a7 4- —0 E — 0 (D - E cu =w— 4-0 z :3 CD m a) .0 N .0 ts -0 m J6. 'a m 0.- (D cl) 0 w C a— w -a 0 tt 'a -0 to 0 z E C 0 D Co -- r C 0 c - a 2 co 0 o L �,- 0-0 M a 0 C D CU LO U) C c 0 U) >1 (D E w 0 r U) (D 2 2 R, r U) 2 a7 o co ar = 0 CU 0 0 'o 0).2 r- r- 0) a) m w 0 cu o o :L- -0 Z = 0 a) 1-0— 0. (L) 0 -C CU (D- w 0) 0) 32 5 0 o (1) 2 20 w ' :5 0 z 0) a -6 a = a m 2 C 0 0- ;74 o o 0 CC (D (D 4) rU CL.. EO a) 0 C C cu r 0 o 0 co (D cu cu ci) b 4- -0 ar 0 (D C 0 m M cl) O is CL 0-0 im- E 2 if M >� _0 C a) 0 or '0 "0 0 —.!= 0 r- 'r- (U . LO _a 0 Cl M-0 N O aim , —a So 'C 2 .0 w m C Lo .0 0-0.— JE — co SO L- 0) 0 A U) - o -C CO O B L- O O a3 ca (D o 0) Lm p7 CCU E (D 0 (D 'o 12 0 m 0 L (D m. 0 0 CL 0 =5 E o Irm - cou - = CU E E.E E O A (D t5 K co E co a ' w E - '=- 0 C> 0 co CC v 0 0, m c: 0- 0 cu >' C E --6 E -E —0- am) a) co (D -0 (D 0 " (D -0 C CU (a 4- m 4- cm 00 a) 0 C (D th v; o Q>sw 0) 0 4-- 8 2 0•-o C w 0) >, L) 0 a) c: L.- ar a7 4- —0 E — 0 (D - E cu =w— 4-0 z :3 CD m a) .0 N .0 ts -0 m 10- c �o °� �(D c� .Q L O y C 1 O C O '� X1 c C — �: Ci Q- C Q 0) :+ ® Qj W e CL-0 Q 0) ®} -0 0 p C , +fa as ca c E �.r o tea ®Q 0 V G" �, U N= I (6 U co � p ati U ' CL C3 ® � 4D . U V CD y . a) CU Q Q) Cl) Urt :L O Q U Q //U� tl� LO G iO (D a O Lo- pyQ 0 ( O 1 �0 } Q 0 � O .0 L ca 0 cu v _� CL 0 ca 5 �! P M co O "a (D CU Q tU 0) 05 -r- U �� N C 2 CL E ED N p O O O C� �i CO CU Q" c D O 'Z, I CL V d U CU a) CL ® go Q � �. > > � �o(.5 tea.} co 0- Q1 a Q 0 7 � �� � to Q Q Q C O 4`° C _ a"a . C M ca (n L'a Q C i v -0 0 (D M pC tf a M O C/f O °� - 'D CD U °� o U 0 (D CD U Co 0 .� Q Q :o V� U Q O ® cu 0 m O 0� w® C6 6) C��� L C •Q � � Q ww O ® Q CTl L a� yr U Q L 'Q CU 0)'. � ci v ---COQ) ( cccy0wg G cq � R3 "' 0 M Q 0 O ® ® a L � e a 45 0)'0 O Q � 2 cu Q U L > Q Co N M G) CD C (D c Co V1 C] 0 C) coo) orn' Q1 " ® 0 r C: (3 O _® U %6 C) U Gi e 0 O ® LU CR (} { 10- G47 0 cn '� 0 � w ° � 0 0 �e c ca 2! v U.— � �° I 'a � � � � o � 1 C cIL c� + O °) p O O ._ � QECD Y 5-0 U QN _Qv w p 'E L °OO v o C U O N U 0 ` O ca Oi C U� OE a-0 CCU a 0 UWCD "= O � CO v (D C c ' c ' cc a) a) O O 0 N .� G1 a ® W ❑ (D ° �vv UO ®c6 ®0 >1CL C D u vI p° C O : 2 o � f].. CL ca . ®O cl) 1�—Q (9 I°QU` O _ c CD (D ® cn c c 0 O p O p O$ N Q. tm,2 tm C `�- c 0 O 00 -~E ® �aU v0i a) ' f09 +,m" ® 0® C' CD -a C Q r N O cu C fq O W O Ca 0 C 0 0 � (6 0 rn ni tm i +�+ � CL � � C O O y C C7 fA '� '� .� '� � yr •w � L gam, G3 d7 rte-+ t� '� N •— .� f6 - 'O Cc ® 4 C O 0 c w_ O L O 7 N .O to Co 0 C L 0 .O O O 2 C O' ® O °� vwc� ®= Q1 °� cOVOi� QOCO� U 0 c C =-0 O 0 p L a '0 i C 2 = c6 I® o 'a co co � O Q. O. < a- m I®. Ica UPI amtem�!q "�H mot° a ®O Mme,�_ ED p� qq ®'�` C Q7 0 C ® L O O Q O ® C 46 U Ig CD a) Q OG C O cu C� qp o P N O "� = 0> CU (D p- O O CD .p t6 CO O Oy ® y O i O p a b S� .w O c i16 � X � r� OL Q� � M cu U N _C L�. D •� •CU ( � O C �p U O (D 4- 0 O O C4 w_ CO -C 2 O C > U V � ® aO W O l� 8-0 (1 O C Pii °' Q °w O., .N 4? U�tt cn O NON� L- �. C O 0 ' Q7 c}- " , 0- 0 W 0 0— c�O a7 c® W E E:� 1 o Boa > a CD� O a- e o M O p —co L �� r- c .:. Cu0�t� �C E O a� pp�`�E ». Aw a) O( O2'0O°cC --0 c4n0aca00 o .0 D5 p O cn O .c q? O QD ' god_ p H o f ®v0 C va =0�� mfl o C3 C z � O t6 4� Q3 i� C� O N wa C 3, O C G� �U t� 0 E �qp L7/ ca N U'M- aag c,c c�U OLD.. 0mnf- pre p u� 1 pppp�� UJ G47 S) ca "> is Q vi a ca v a as a)i ca eA ° cam. s (0,01 M0 a� w� c co e� �� L:� m0 �C ma ��0 (4, v- �C_) EL I C cc U EL M 0 ® �> , a> ¢ cm (1) a' ca 0-0 m Q o f o'E U ®� 10 v CJ a. U m ca U a. 1- .v is U a7 ai L ® O 10- � Q a3 � C po 0 p c C: (D CL M. M C a P 2i c o C 0 a, ca 0 ° »_ ag C0�'� >w c Sao �a o��c QEoaa� a3vC N0m=s L C t E'c p C fri b tq Cc i C a c ® i 4 C (D ,r y cn ca C U NL + + V C a) U C ® i E ` ® L 6) X 0 0 t 4) 2t Q � w a 0 CD C a0 N E a} C'C C V 9 E E ®f11 f U t6 ®- i =C F= aE V V Z.0 M� o �'� v.�c �o 0 con � � � v E r CL 2 0.- 10 � a-0 0 E a) v �,� E C v = 0 0 0. �aiM. — oar r U as c ® °0•a�0 o ®°D ` as ® C .� o � 5 0 C A U7 c� v a) mv� ®off a3 ®$;E �� > ®� a)Wov� ®— 0 CY a) 4) C L:0)— tsE M ��wMco = CEa 8CM E' E E = Q s ` _o Qg ►^ U C O. `C O � �- 1D m cu c a) CC,4 U C j w® C) C :3 "0 v UJ ru ca .0 cu C o as ca � E �� ors . 0 �� e o 0-a cry w Ca ca n 0 a) _ a3 �p U c ' C' "0 r ocu r g � ca O co CL LD 0 o �acn �,C =n 1 E U C.=CD o ¢ a3 0.0 e) . 6j 66 z � ps 9 (D $ •C ® c o � °c ' CL • c CL ❑. al a`"a a� o v -0 cu .� as .— . C � � 0, °p °a C ® 0 O a)v� I cc 4- C d I a- �� Vi O O 0 ®pC C t1 6 cs °C-0 ma C .ctp �' YpC 0 CA tJ 0 n. ) Q 2 0 Q O 6� V` C O (� O N . tG � � .°cn m F � C� IC— C) IT c CCo 0IM C CD M Sri c v nt 0 vac C 0 p c C ®p NQ )0 4 O °p CL 0= rL CLLR p I C�fn o d U m O O r p" '� G7 m O " F-<00 <00 >+ C O O _0 C C 0 O® O O O =` O O O t6 w O- 0 C E O "O +- 0 d 4 Ul o m O E C> O t4 V ® C(u 2 o 4 o CL m D 0 a C O C1 C O N ili 0 O� U� ". 0�� fie= _ c!' —p p C v ® E(D Ul p • ® p e�y '� W+ y..+ C in C pCa °� ca'DC co ® 1 N Q ® o �, C _ w V_J v C sOp °> a 0 Q? ® O C O M > "` U O O O � V C .m �,WX O 7 (D O C> C N o N w O o y m w a Q -O >+ SU 0 G U i ®` E E c` N 0 c im L O .Q 47 � Co r- 5; C s C O C (D Ci Co Oy E ,C ®�,� O C O 0 'E 2SL > C I® o 0 ®fiJ U = LLI C O C CL 11 C 'Vi m .0 C 0-0-6 ' O O O 6— o 0- O lt3 O O 0) co 0 0 � N C U p O C 0 N 0 v :6 C; y e, � aaV0 N (d m' (a I .O N® d p .Ir o U.— (U (UpvoU a 00 `�f `� C .0 — 10 iC � C C 0 �' C +a C 0 _ y cc `� ® v e-C 0ay?� °Cis 0 C O O - O 0 C M O, C �§ M �O y : Cv M MU C CSC cr -0 sy p ® � ® fZ � C � i Q CO3 O 0. U O � "a O C E— .0 °o 0 O O N` e p co — 0 to 0 p U °rO� \\d ®. ® �: . 0 [6 C® - f6 L- 0 A��� ci W Q C CD — p dam+ Er- :(� � 2 °� .Tm q� CL �I°+ °V'' C Cry — F� 0 c.0 fU ` Yl -0C ,ice' 0 co U 3 C9 G .� r w O O N >s (� ( C C O 0 O CD i° C d QS Q p 0 It -'mow > . VJ Qi 0 w C V} O O U 0 �C ,� rr O y. U O C 2 O C: -0 C L L CU L. 0 0 .a_ co +r ` Ci�C z 9 T U 2 0 0 =_ M °y� B c q� °Y ��d C 6 s- Gi a••o L a � OL () •�f •m CD p1�.. T �i E c m a- _W m CS N = N 0 0 C N-0 0 m N= � 0. °� d Llf q MP ca V E 4..' C � a) 12 E r- r-r- � Q L •Qi cu c LL[ CU v cu y "" ® Qi CO 0 C C).— v aa) O Q � 0 .L = Q C® 0 c L C® - O a" -0 rte+ - yE U �ca U aE UIL 00 U0, s� a c �a (D as 0 v cO �c O 0 p 0 00 0 a �, d >, !i U) N 1 ® ID O � �c?� ca q tam. 0 t6 acv G5 C- 0 a9 Q. 0 ® as �0 Q 0 ® °o ca o CD o L- 0 A = — °0 N�-�a ° c a3 E > sa iOO�� v N: tm 0 L 0 Q1 •a CL — ®�. •C C ® "� 0 0 ® L ®' Q� C co tq > Q7 'w :O ®. CD MA? "a asOC�. ®=oa7 0` 0. a$ 5 CL IZ U ay > N .Q as a3 P U E f� C 0 "� C cn Y ® r C ° a3 u (6 0 > ° i® 0 = .0 m a3 0. tii ® OO co 0 a- 5 CD U 0 ,Q, Q Ri �_ .� E. as ay i. E ® N N S E V) °� a� N, g �.0 >, IL v_ ® C w N m .0 CD w.2 a® O 2 0 Co o °0 (a ®® E ` N U t6 coq a) C Q a co Q O M U .Y co 2.s2 r— >, >, 0 0 rojy V 0 N N m M "� 0 V a3 >+ a>} EJ 00 e 0 0 ID Ca 0 'C 0, L s,, ca Q) 0 CU C 0 ® L 0 L E> c a3 - 0 s� E s: f ai E CD M EU Q¢ ' 0 "- a C ID o � m 75 0 a)4- '0 07 G0 U� 0 0? � � � W.— ��y u� aras-�o00 N ron � 0 � .0 � °g °� N I¢ Q° _C 0 � ~ -0 � � O � 0 co L, a5 m >, 0- C W0 > � -� Z3 � � L ' N 0 a) O ` � � a) 0 N > vy w •� 0 CO '0 N CD !m X 0 �� 0® y co � 8 03 w O F—w cu t!! E F —v�U�. 0 U) T tl T E_ 0 0� 0� az U) 'c c �a e �+ C a O C7 O C a C5 tf 0. a V w° 3 O'® Q. < N 6 L C O oll a O i (6 Z W 'o L 4- ®% P N >,— r c Q± 0 E O � �' � � � p i ® N 67 'O 0.— ®� 7 N N W C .0 O 0 V .0 V D)M =*6) c Cl) `o M'L� 0 a Co M 414- 0 O 0 U _ L GS C® f6 V a O 0 U r a 0® N 0 ® E p 2! 0 u C V e N0 O ` U � .a -C M N U 0) O E= 0 M ?, (a N 4) tA; Cl 'O N W e (.� � C w ® y y N E M a o on d- 0� a L rr s.. L O O L O N U® 07 GS >+ Gy c y O C UN N 4 C- e N ON O +. ro O ,0) fh M N� L_ O 6. E' .E E 0 P ® E— O U m _C Q LC: O w G07 � 0�� CLC � a i � 0 co � t6 Q. (D � E ij 4a 4 Q CD > Q :3 cCJ N a O'D CD (D 0 Q V E y Qi O C i O.. .y O N� u tOA C Q ® 0 — it ^� .� � 'i� 4.. GN°! Q 4� i N O E G �A O a) 3 0 '0 0) � � O � (D N � W [6 � N a� > 0 c a � � v cq'vCLN (n s� e� tl T Cy of Arcadia Medical Off "ce Buildings, Air Qualit Study I August 13, 2012 Project No. 12 -00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property havestment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 Ri con Convultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 805 644 41455 FAx 644 4240 info@riiicoi)cotistiltafits.com %Afkkrw. rin cone on su It a nts. c oni AIR QUALITY STUDY Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: Rincon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached Air Quality Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in Arcadia, California. The proposed project would result in temporary reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions that would exceed the recommended South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold. Mitigation was provided, limiting the total area to which architectural coatings could be applied on a daily basis during construction. This mitigation would reduce the project's temporary regional air quality impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed project would not result in any other emissions that would exceed the recommended South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operational or construction thresholds. As such, impacts related to air quality as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant, with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. If you have any questions regarding this study or if we can provide you with other environmental consulting services, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Chris Bersbach Associate Environmental Planner Joe Power, AICP Principal E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s November 27,2012 Project No'. 12-00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property Investment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 R.Incon Consultants, Inc. 180 Ndrth Mz4v4cod AvEnie Ventura, Califortila 93003 8305 644:4455 FAX 644 AIR QUALITY STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: This memorandum has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to supplement the Air Quality Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in the City of Arcadia. Rincon previously prepared the Air Quality Study dated August 13, 2012 for the proposed project. While the proposed floor area and land use components associated with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 remain the same, it is our understanding that the proposed project has been revised to reflect a conversion of 400 square feet of restaurant floor area into general office space in Building 4. Rincon has prepared this supplemental memorandum to determine whether the findings from the Air Quality Study remain valid based on the recommended South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds. Because the overall floor area of the project would remain the same, no substantial change to short-term construction emissions would be anticipated. Similarly, no substantial change to energy emissions or area source emissions would be anticipated. However, the proposed revision would potentially result in a change in the volume of vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project, which may result in a change in mobile source emissions. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Engineers) prepared a supplemental trip generation assessment, dated November 27, 2012, intended to supplement the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project, dated August 15, 2012. Briefly, the supplemental trip generation assessment indicated that the proposed project, as revised, is forecast to generate approximately 1,866 daily trip ends during a typical weekday, as compared to the prior proposed project, which was was forecast to generate 1,888 vehicle trip ends during a typical weekday. Therefore, the revised project would result in somewhat fewer vehicle trips, as compared to the prior proposed project. E n v 1 r o n m e n t a I S c i e n t i s t -5 P I a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Rincon Cansu[tanft, Inc. 180 NoM Asliwood Avenue Ventura, Galifotnia 33003 ao5 644 4455 FAX 644 4240 info @rin colic € as- ttlitants. corn W' 41W.rincanconsUltants.com Based on a review of the revised trip generation forecast, described above, the revised project is anticipated to result in a small overall decrease in the project's long -term mobile source criteria pollutant emissions. Accordingly, it is determined that the analysis and findings from the August 13, 2012 Aix Quality Study remain valid. Additional air quality analysis will not be required for the proposed revised project. If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINC€ N CONSULTANTS, INC. (a '6� -- Chris Bersbach Associate Environmental Planner d Joe Power, AICP Principal E n v i r o n m e n t a f S c i e n t i s t s i l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s QW6,01618918% IRL Consulting GeotechnIcal Engineers �Years, April 26, 2012 - Revised July 24, 2.012 19712011 File No. 20300 VG Property Investments, LLC 25 East Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Attention: Mike Soo SH bi —ect: Geotechical Engineering Investigation Proposed Medical Office Buildings, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building 125 West Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place, Arcadia, California Ladies and Gentlemen: ,This letter transmits the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation. for the subject property prepared by Geotechnologies, Inc. This report provides geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site, including earthwork, seismic design, foundation, retaining walls, excavations, and shoring design. Engineering for the proposed project should not begin until approval of the geotechnical investigation is granted by the local building official. Significant changes in the geotechnical recommendations may result due to the building department review process. The validity of the recommendations presented herein is dependant upon review of the geotechnical aspects of the project during construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from limited subsurface exploration and laboratory testing. The exploration and testing presented in this report should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between the exploration locations or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions. Should you have any questions please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECHNTOLOGIES, INC. R SST:km CIV1%.- Distribution: (2) Addressee (5) Pacific Design Group; Attn: Ken Paddock 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 e 818.240.9600 -, 818.240.9675 fax April 26 9 2012 Revised July 24, 201.2 File No. 20300 Page 10 Based upon the exploration, laboratorytesting, andresearch, it is the finding of Geotechnologies, Inc. that construction of the proposed office buildings and parking structure is considered feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint provided the advice and recommendations presented herein are followed and implemented during construction. Between. I %2 and 3 feet of existing fill materials was encountered during exploration at the site. Due to the variable nature and the varying depths of the existing fill materials, the existing fill materials are considered to be unsuitable for support ofthe proposed foundations, floor slabs, or additional fill. The proposed medical office buildings (Building 2 and 3) and parking structure (Building 1) will be constructed entirely over one subterranean level of parking garage, extending between 11% to 161/2 feet below the first floor elevation. It is anticipated that excavation of the proposed subterranean level will remove the existing fill soils from the site, and expose the underlying dense native soils. The proposed medical office buildings and parking structure may be supported on conventional foundations bming in the underlying dense native soils. The proposed professional office building (Building 4) will be constructed at or near the present grade. It is recounnended that all existing fill materials and the upper native soils be removed and recorr pacted to create an uniform fill padforthe, support of the proposed foundations and floor slabs. The proposed professional office building maybe constructed on conventional foundations bearing in the newly placed uniform fill pad, April 26, 2012 Revised July 24, 2012 File No. 20300 Page 11 site grade, or 3 feet below, the bottom of the proposed foundation system, whichever is greater. In addition, the proposed fill pad shall be overexcavated a minimum. of 3 feet horizontally beyond the edge of foundations or for a distance equal to the depth of fill below the foundations, whichever is greater. The existing fill materials may be utilized for the construction of the proposed fill pad. Any imported fill materials shall be verified and tested by this office prior to usage on site. It is anticipated that excavation of the proposed subterranean level will require shoring measure to provide a stable worldng area due to the proposed depth, the granular nature of the onsite soils, and the proximity of adjacent properties and public right of ways. Foundations for small outlying structures, such as property line walls, trash enclosures, and planters, which will not be tied-in to the proposed structures may be supported on conventional foundations bearing in the underlying native soils and/or certified compacted fill. The following statement is made in regard to Los Angeles County Code Sections 110 and 111: It is the opinion of the undersigned based on the findings of this investigation, that provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed, the proposed development will be safe for its intended use against hazard from landsliding, settlement or slippage. The proposed development will have no adverse effect on the stability of the site of adjoining properties. The validity of the conclusions and design recommendations presented herein is dependant upon review of the geoteohnical aspects of the proposed construction by this firm. The subsurface conditions described herein have been projected from borings on the site as indicated and should in no way be construed to reflect any variations which may occur between these borings or which may result from changes in subsurface conditions Any changes in the design or location of any structure, 61311[8011610916% Elio. 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 - 818.240.9600 - 818.240.9675` fax April 26, 2012 Revised July 24, 2012 File No. 20300 Page 12 as outlined in this report, should be reviewed bythis office. The recommendations contained herein should not be considered valid until reviewed and modified or reaffirmed subsequent to such review. The maximum depth of fill encountered on the site was 3 feet. This material and any fill generated during demolition should be removed during the excavation of the subterranean level, and properly recompacted for support of the at-grade structure. EXPANSIDE &O-ILS The onsite geologic materials are in the very low to moderate expansion range. The Expansion Index was found to be between 7 and 64 for bulk samples remolded to 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Recommended reinforcing is noted in the "Foundation Design" and "Slabs On Grade" sections of this report. Site Prga&ration All vegetation, existing fill, and soft or disturbed geologic materials should boremoved from the areas to receive controlled fill. Athorough search should be made for possible underground utilities and/or stiucturcs. The excavated areas shall be carefally observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to placing compacted fill. 439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 v 8'18.240.9500. 818.240.9675 fax Standard, Urban StorTy��ter Mitigation Plar (SUSMP) for New Medical office Building & New Parking Structure 161 W. Colorado Pl, ARCADIA5 CA 9100� Parcel Noi 12826 & Tract No. 62234 APN: 6775-015-024, 026, 026, &027 PREE,ARED BY Lin Consulting, Inc. 21660, E. Copley Drive, #270 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel: 909-396-6850 Fax: 909-396-8150 ON. too. 4 0 SUSMP Prepared: May 2f, 2012 OWNER'S CERTIFICATION Standard Urban Stormwater , a i for New Medical Office Building P No. &Tract No. 62234 This Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for Now Medical Office Building has been prepared for VG Property Investments, LLC, by LIN Consultlnar, Inc. This SUSMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, requiring the preparation of a project specific SUSMP. I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my jurisdiction or supervision In accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for the gathered information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, Including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Los Angeles County Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP), and the intent of the stormwater and urban runoff N'PDES Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Los Angeles County under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. A copy of this SUSMP will be maintained at the project site /office. This SUSMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this SUSMP. At least one copy of the approved and certified copy of this SUSMP shall be available on the subject property in perpetuity. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- Interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the SUSMP. Mike Soo VG Property Investments, LLC Owner Company Printed Name /Title 25 E Huntington Dr Arcadia CA 9806 Company Address (6261821 -8777 — Telephone No. Date d Vii: ,� August 13, 2012 Project No. 12-00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property Investment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 8o5 644 4455 FAX 644 4240 ill f 0@rin (: 0 nc 0 n sil It a lit S. co III t,oww.rinconconsLdtaMs.com GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: Rincon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached Greenhouse Gas Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in Arcadia, California. The proposed project would result in 2,211 metric tons OOZE per year, and therefore would not exceed the 3,000 metric tons per year threshold recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As such, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and climate change would be less than significant. It should be noted that this threshold is a recommended threshold by SCAQMD, and has not yet been formally adopted. If you have any questions regarding this study or if we can provide you with other environmental consulting services, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Chris Bersbach Environmental Planner Joe �P o AICP�' Principal En v I r o n M a n t a I S c i e n t i s t s P I a n n e r s E n g i n e e r.s November 27 2012 Project No. 12 -00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property Investment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 Einec�n Coft waifantW, Inc, i80 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 ao5 044'4455' ; Ax 644 4240 info@ririconcoiisti(tants,coin 1tiww.rincancarmlltants,carn GREENHOUSE GAS STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: This memorandum has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc, to supplement the Greenhouse Gas Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in the City of Arcadia. Rincon previously prepared the Greenhouse Gas Study dated August 13, 2012 for the proposed project. While the proposed floor area and land use components associated with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 remain the same, it is our understanding that the proposed project has been revised to reflect a conversion of 400 square feet of restaurant floor area into general office space in Building 4. Rincon has prepared this supplemental memorandum to determine whether the findings from the Greenhouse Gas Study remain valid based on the 3,000 metric tons per year threshold recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Because the overall floor area of the project would remain the same, no substantial change to short-term construction emissions would be anticipated. Similarly, no substantial change to on -site operational emissions would be anticipated. However, the proposed revision would potentially result in a change in the volume of vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project, which may result in a change in GHG emissions from mobile combustion. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Engineers) prepared a supplemental trip generation assessment, dated November 27, 2012, intended to supplement the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project, dated August 15, 2012. Briefly, the supplemental trip generation assessment indicated that the proposed project, as revised, is forecast to generate approximately 1,866 daily trip ends during a typical weekday, as compared to the prior proposed project, which was was forecast to generate 1,888 vehicle trip ends during a typical weekday. Therefore, the revised project would result in somewhat fewer vehicle trips, as compared to the prior proposed project. E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Rintatr ors #t tr s; Ittc. 180 forth As`flwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003 8o5 644 4455, FAX 644 4240 iiifo @rinconconsuitants.corn %, %?w.rinc oil con sultants.com Based on a review of the revised trip generation forecast, described above, the revised project is anticipated to result in a small overall decrease in the project's long -term GFIG emissions from mobile combustion. Accordingly, it is determined that the analysis and findings from the August 13, 2012 Greenhouse Gas Study remain valid. Additional GHG analysis will not be required for the proposed revised project. If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Chris Bersbach Environmental Planner oeePower, AICP Principal E n v i r on men t a I Scientists P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Noise Study October 2, 2012 Project No. 12 -00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property Investment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 NOISE STUDY Rincon Consultants, Inc. 100 North Ashwood Avenue Venture, California 93003 soy 644 4455 FAX 644 4240 info @rinconconsultarits. com w, ,,tw.rinconconsulta'nts.coni Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: Rincon Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit the attached Noise Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in Arcadia, California. The proposed project would have a potentially significant impact related to temporary construction noise; however, restrictions on the timing of construction operations, construction equipment requirements, and neighbor notification would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The proposed project would not result in any long -term noise levels exceeding the noise standards policies in the City of Arcadia's General Plan Noise Element or Municipal Code. As such, impacts related to noise as a result of the proposed. project would be less than significant. If you have any questions regarding this study or if we can. provide you with other environmental consulting services, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Chris Bersbach Environmental Planner hoeower, AICP Principal E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s November 27,2012 Project No. 12-00033 Mr. Mike Soo VG Property Investment, LLC 25 E. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91107 Inc, d Avenue 1 93003 soy 644 4455 FAX 644 424.0 www.rinconconsultaiits,com NOISE STUDY - SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project Arcadia, California Dear Mr. Soo: This memorandum has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to supplement the Noise Study for the proposed Medical Office Building, Parking Structure, and Professional Office Building Project in the City of Arcadia. Rincon previously prepared the Noise Study dated October 2, 2012 for the proposed project. While the proposed floor area and land use components associated with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 remain the same, it is our understanding that the proposed project has been revised to reflect a conversion of 400 square feet of restaurant floor area into general office space in Building 4. Rincon has prepared this supplemental memorandum to determine whether the findings from the Noise Study remain valid based on the noise standards policies in the City of Arcadia's General Plan Noise Element or Municipal Code. Because the overall size and scope of the project would remain the same, no changes to temporary construction noise would be anticipated. Similarly, no substantial change to long-term operational noise would be anticipated. However, the proposed revision would potentially result in a change in the volume of vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project, which may result in a change in long-term regional noise levels. Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Engineers) prepared a supplemental trip generation assessment, dated November 27, 2012, intended to supplement the traffic impact study prepared for the proposed project, dated August I ' 5, 2012. Briefly, the supplemental trip generation assessment indicated that the proposed project, as rei-. ised, is forecast to generate approximately 1,866 daily trip ends during a typical week&-)7,,as compared to the prior proposed project, which was was forecast to generate 1,888 vehicle trip ends during a typical weekday. Therefore, the revised project would result in somewhat fewer vehicle trips, as compared to the prior proposed project. E n v i r o n M e n t a I S c i e n t i s t .9 P I a n n e r s E n g i n a e r s Rincon CarmuCtants, Inc, 1130 North Asl.wood Avenue Venter <e, califaraia 93003 fo5 644 445� FAX 644 4241 3nfaCri��car+rr���sttlt�nts.cam +r gw.rirlcanconsitItasrzs.c0111 Based on a review of the revised trip generation forecast, described above, the revised project is anticipated to result in a small overall decrease in the project's long- term regional noise levels. Accordingly, it is determined that the analysis and findings from the October 2, 2012 Noise Study remain valid. Additional noise analysis will not be required for the proposed revised project. If you have any questions regarding this study, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, RINCON CONSUL'TAN'TS, INC. Chris Bersbach Environmental Planner e Principal E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g Alfred C Ylig, P Senior ra norl TRAFFIC IMPACT A 125 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND 1COLORADO PROJECT City of Arcadia, California August 15 2012 Prepared fora VG Property Investments 25 East Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 LLG Ref. 1 -11- 3942 -1 Under the Supervision of (Yam Gym J Lrm haw& Gr�en ersspar4 Engineers / - Clare M. Look - Jaeger, P.E. 236 N. Chester Ave.. Suite 200 We r Principal Pasadena, CA 91106 626.79627322 r 626.792.0941 F vd m.Ilgengineers.corn 13.0 CONCLUSIONS This traffic impact study has been prepared to identify and evah traffic generated by the proposed 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 proposed project consists of the development of the following building floor area and corresponding land use components: a Building 1: 163,468 GSF Parking Structure Building 2: 19,995 GSF of Medical Office Use ate the potential impacts of Colorado Place project. The gross square feet (GSF) of Building 3: 16,441 GSF of Medical Office Use + 3,000 GSF of Restaurant Use Building 4: 22,819 GSF of General Office Use + 2,000 GSF of Restaurant Use Construction of the proposed project is planned to be built and occupied by 2015. In order to evaluate the potential impacts due to the proposed project, four intersections were identified for evaluation in consultation with the City of Arcadia to determine changes in operations following occupancy and utilization of the project. The proposed project is expected to generate 149 additional vehicle trips (113 inbound trips and 36 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 187 additional vehicle trips (56 inbound trips and 131 outbound trips). Over a 24 -hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,888 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (approximately 944 inbound trips and 944 outbound trips). It is concluded that the proposed project will not create significant traffic impacts at any of the study intersections. Incremental, but less than significant impacts are noted at the study intersections. Therefore, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the study intersections. A review was conducted to determine whether the proposed project would result in significant traffic impacts to the Congestion Management Program (CMP) roadway system. Based on the CMP threshold criteria, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in significant impacts at any of the CMP intersection or freeway monitoring locations. LINSCOTf, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1 -11- 3942 -1 125 W. Huntington Drive and 16I Colorado Place Project -50- To: Ken Paddock Date: November 27, 2012 Pacific Design Group From: Alfred C. Ping, P.E., PTP LLG Ref 1 -11- 3942 -1 Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place Project — Subject Supplemental Trip Generation Assessment This memorandum has been prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Engineers) to summarize the supplemental trip generation assessment prepared for the proposed 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place project in the City of Arcadia. LLG Engineers previously prepared the traffic impact study dated August 15, 2012 for the proposed project. While the proposed floor area and land use components associated with Buildings 1, 2, and 3 remain the same, it is our understanding that the proposed project has been slightly revised to reflect a conversion of 400 square feet of restaurant floor area into general office space in Building 4. LLG Engineers has prepared this trip generation assessment to determine whether the findings from the traffic impact study remain valid based on City of Arcadia traffic analysis guidelines. Briefly, it is concluded that the proposed revised project is expected to result in small overall decreases in project traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis. As such, it is determined that the analysis and findings from the traffic impact study remain valid. Additional traffic analysis will not be required for the proposed revised project. Revised Project Trip Generation. The revised trip generation forecast for the 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place project is summarized in Table 6 -1 (Revised). As shown in Table 6 -1 (Revised), the revised project is expected to generate 147 additional vehicle trips (113 inbound trips and 34 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the revised project is expected to generate 186 additional vehicle trips (55 inbound trips and 131 outbound trips). Over a 24 -hour period, the revised project is forecast to generate approximately 1,866 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (933 inbound trips and 933 outbound trips). When compared with the trip generation forecast for the previously proposed 125 W. Huntington Drive and 161 Colorado Place project analyzed in the August 15, 2012 traffic impact study, it is concluded that the trip generation forecast for the revised project description results in a decrease in traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis. The prior proposed project was forecast to generate 149 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 187 additional vehicle trips during the PM peak hour, and 1,888 additional vehicle trip ends during a typical weekday..- As such, the trip generation forecast for the re- sed project reflects decreases of two vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, one vehicle trip during the PM peak hour, and 22 vehicle trips on a daily basis when compared to the previously 0:'tOB.,FT1.F,'.i4a21rapnn39d3- Spa »l+lemenial Trip Genomlion Memo.doe Engineers & Planners Traffic Transportation Parking unscok Law Gseenspa% Gngitteers 600 S. Lake Avenue ;Suite 500 Pasadena, CA 91906 626390.2322 r 626.762.0941 r www.11gengineers, coin Pasadena Costa Mesa Sall Diego Las Vegas 27, 2012 proposed project. For comparison purposes, a copy of the project trip generation (Table 6-1) as contained in the August 15, 2012 traffic impact study is attached. Summary Based on a review of the trip generation forecast, the proposed revised project is anticipated to result in small overall decreases in project traffic volumes during the AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis. Accordingly, it is determined that the analysis and findings from the August 15, 2012 traffic impact study remain valid. Additional traffic analysis will not be required for the proposed revised project. Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions or comments regarding this supplemental trip generation assessment. Attachments Clare M, Look-Jaeger, P.E., LLG Engineers CiDnelation Niemu.doc EXHIBIT "A" Existing Legal Description Parcel I of Parcel Map 12826, per map recorded in Book 129, page 31 of Parcel Maps, Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California; Excepting tneretrom MY -1 - 1 Document No. 79-1326058, Official Records • said County. Lot I of Tract 62234, as per map recorded in Book 1345, pages 92-93 inclusive, of Maps, Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. VC E. PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC 25 HUNTINGTON DR. 526-821-8777 APRIMAW DA.WSON SUPVEYING, Inc 575 Carreon Dr, Colton, CA 92324 909-430-00j6 909-430-0046 FAX W��Hfi 045M CF MRDW TiE BEARrAVS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON H.S. 1345192-93. L6 110" 0 , cz LA W. EXISTIAG LOT LIRE TO RSAA IN PARCEL LIB TO BE REMOVED f vi EA NT PER T17-LE REPORT t_0-1 y 013 '-` rt 11- - Hi j w 557-015-024 N UJ UD c°n_ PD x I LINE BEARING DISTANCE L I N895733"N 55.35' L2 S85 55 29 W 59.81 ' L3 5B8 '56 29' 41.95' L4 N30 '33'15 "N 54B2' L5 N06 '05'52 "N 129.95' L� N06 '0552 "PV 99.83' L;i S59 *2544 -W 3.10' LINE PADIUS LiELTA LENGTH C1 20.00, -qo '00 31. C2 340,00' 11-5720- 70,95' EXHIBIT "C" New Legal Description Parcel I of Parcel Map 12826, per map recorded in Book 129, page 31 of Parcel Maps, Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California; Excepting therefrom that portion per deed to the City of Arcadia, recorded November 26, 1979 as Docu, ment No. 79-1326058, Official Records of said County. Together with Lot I of Tract 62234, as per map recorded in Book 1345, pages 92-93 inclusive, of Maps, Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California. ME ON67 VC PROPERTY INVESTMENTSLLC 25 E. HUNTINGTON DR, 626-821-8777 ACMIMT DAWSON SURVEYING, Inc 575 Carreon dr. Col tort CA 92324 909-430-0016 909-430-00-46 FAX bKm pF asumm TIE BEARIMS AND DISTANCES ARE BASED ON M.B. 1345192-93, EXISTM LOT LIAL TO REMAIN PARCEL LIW TO BE REMOVED (D EASEWNT PER TITLE REPORT No. 6932 / * Exp. 9°30 -9 ."k- /' _0 I CJ E- SCALE 1 —100' to 1 557-015-0,-4 -_' -_j N 01 °C,3,56- W 230J3' STN pAFAEL PD L EINE: —BEAPING FNV57% DISTANCE L N8.9 -N 5535' L2 588 '55 29 7V 59.8i' L3 585 '55 29 "N 41.95' L 4 N30 '33'15 IV 54,82 - OC CJ E- SCALE 1 —100' to 1 557-015-0,-4 -_' -_j N 01 °C,3,56- W 230J3' STN pAFAEL PD L EINE: —BEAPING FNV57% DISTANCE L N8.9 -N 5535' L2 588 '55 29 7V 59.8i' L3 585 '55 29 "N 41.95' L 4 N30 '33'15 IV 54,82 - L5 NOE °05 52"N 129-95' L 6 N5116 '0552 "N 99B3' L L + 559 '2544 "N 5 3,10' LINE RADIUS DELTA —F-L—E-IV-G—TH� cl 20,00' 90 °00 27 31.42 ' C2 340,00 ' 11 '57 2 70.95' THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LANK if Z r. Right-of-Way DGdication plan Exhibit D W M� , IL 161 Colorado Place - view from coomao viace 1.25 W. Huntington Drive - view from Colorado Place to screen the new parking structure and medical buildings Im, mlllm its is".� MU M $ mat $ S C �9cn nls�ti, on, AiNbwuDA �1Y Ltfl YYHSN � I}B Yi��ay p � r y i � f i °tSfi« e !y8�g� g'8.R,g8sat pd j C °° ���_ �y a J�'Iw «F " g w'R,2in"�F17n0 � at quo I�� q 3MDDD H Ir� q SH��� iy� Eyi2j� 1 0Y9 9= •Md % 8 4 ' >y Y 5 Ca " "�3$ �4 B U), oo 111HI a R p ggq[gipg� ppp ggg rt pgYga fo ! d 4 E S F Lw �. ggpy gpp k ?rj gg� 0 w HIT � �allx p¢ V c og QQ R p=�e9 g�Ag�g ggAgR 'I A :733 cp FBB� q�r.6° _. Sad 154, IM! .� u i� tlgg ggggg ggggyg 56k - @ @2 @E@ g6�6a �y�g 6 g [E � � J C5 l�2@ � qp yg3gggsggg,ggpg�p� SRRygyg1g1g++ p ®�ggRgRyBpqpq ggRR ���� $ �� � $ 6 SQ $ � ��� QR q� 9 d W. w e YN� ��a� k` Y �P*'j _dA 4A J h UT U1 U3 LL R i Y 1 .G w g H jjE i{ Mill 'I? 1h M1 [tlti �i�FFl3tfeFl €Ff�; ii i 111.10,11 �.✓ i .• f4 flE { fiEa - - .. '� a :4' ''t "pe .F °� % ee T: t eE. F:[. a� {�{ e[ i i ie [ :i fi q�Y # € 1� g ! :i {fl`• (' LAJ «i. 11 FE i 3 {' {•sffc- C of { { � €j }; {`�I [�[ t � !•�[,i.,�i: pp }5 t Elm- #`[ 1�f7 [f pflat ��� ' [I' ti� �r [ t{ Ia i•1' if65i( 1 {' ? {`1t. his? !` €° i3f1•�1 {[j {t i�t?I�?�Ili +' 51 1Ij {!![2F S;i: 5 $t[! r ?`5 #s ilk [ S!(f { {i] •••'• '& vm. EONmP' mlx+° aSYa. ea. uro' �UOOt .wlmiciia'meavtaw�ww�ewuoiiw+ Yw�eeleDweaxms9 t SIdON V SNOf1XiA�2198Y ti �, p sonic vsmr�tir a @ � g r. aorwwrta »�Misw�tmoxoia�,w,r�•rnsi pffi rou 55111 DIVOINOWISMNI ALUMMd DA ONI®ime aDWO'INOISSUOIld V 32U11.Of I$ r JWiHtlbd'SJNIO II(iS 33Id30 ivoia 6Y k g ' I CO LJJ RR�gg} 9� RRx aj 3 ast V. a uj k @ a fps 4 gp ggqr�s t d a $ Y u ® Ll1 RR $ -kill! Y k ON �B y tl x a g fg yy pp@g QgY EL yy • h ^J o� I3F�RRNR QB tp� � �Cd �*� § � �� gy �� � i � CO r @� SPA 0 9A iUKJ.» d 3 N q p 4 gg �yyH'at �lFg�x$�gg q{�°$�Tg§(p(p,,� � �� €� IpL3�Eg�yy�g]g� 4 nY1 '�3337 tK�� ygy ��3� � :��ygyy �ppxgp��g�yg �Ba ` }`� iY R& '�8y,334 X46 15 5 � B y G�Y�$ 3 SYSY tJJ i{�i{{{{{& �F$$gg yB�p� 4 #�F�9�a� �g�� ❑yp cPRI K � 4�ER i!:.! L1i Y k �4[P P 43 5i' 99 y:'9 5s14 s3ai51'4 RR� 8d`d $6S5 y66 BE.is�2Qr Ff N G� 9 Y�C II }:$ i, q &3d�Y$�4' :,aY.'e4 'ti! °oYFi? k5S$ = °.].i a93�Y�� 5 5� °e3 rSf :S D`c boo €SobE�3 €?4 iE[r r�e�J�$6RY�; vY °•E>a� > %�I F. °:` -. Do t SIdON V SNOf1XiA�2198Y ti �, p sonic vsmr�tir a @ � g r. aorwwrta »�Misw�tmoxoia�,w,r�•rnsi pffi rou 55111 DIVOINOWISMNI ALUMMd DA ONI®ime aDWO'INOISSUOIld V 32U11.Of I$ r JWiHtlbd'SJNIO II(iS 33Id30 ivoia 6Y k g ' I CO LJJ RR�gg} 9� RRx aj 3 V. a uj k @ a fps 4 gp ggqr�s t d a $ Y u ® Ll1 RR $ -kill! Y k ON �B y tl x a g fg yy pp@g QgY EL yy • h ^J o� I3F�RRNR QB tp� � �Cd �*� § � �� gy �� � i � CO r @� SPA 0 9A iUKJ.» d 3 N q p 4 gg �yyH'at �lFg�x$�gg q{�°$�Tg§(p(p,,� � �� €� IpL3�Eg�yy�g]g� 4 nY1 '�3337 tK�� ygy ��3� � :��ygyy �ppxgp��g�yg �Ba ` }`� iY R& '�8y,334 X46 15 5 � B y G�Y�$ 3 SYSY tJJ i{�i{{{{{& �F$$gg yB�p� 4 #�F�9�a� �g�� ❑yp cPRI K � 4�ER i!:.! L1i Y k �4[P P 43 5i' 99 y:'9 5s14 s3ai51'4 RR� 8d`d $6S5 y66 BE.is�2Qr Ff N G� 9 Y�C II }:$ i, q &3d�Y$�4' :,aY.'e4 'ti! °oYFi? k5S$ = °.].i a93�Y�� 5 5� °e3 rSf :S D`c boo €SobE�3 €?4 iE[r r�e�J�$6RY�; vY °•E>a� > %�I F. °:` -. Do R k d k$ � iGm PP.M199 U "S$ fF Ny ui ad MOURN 0 d NO Al -- ------------------- o71'sw3wamml 'L'uoad DA nionigs Old " IN oNimins apid uo"93d 'Oly z 0 W 0 z ui -j 0 CJ O Q2 FQ- can 9 ti LL LLI :�;.:,,ea,,.:, ay ftF SS1 ul 8 l \ W Z o I { f ,`r�"i� Af LEI 19 ,79 n n �\ V •',f� gj H MR MO WHIM Ri .� 4 .nfr- I w. � i 5+'a 1'�� ♦ ` ,V4A � •I ( . , 1� 1 i�g� €d�E 011 t �SSfrd I �,,✓ �r � 1 ` *` ca 111 cc. ,. _ Lu 'u tu g: ®000 000 555o ®� N � I f g iI t8 lr Y 'P v II e '; j• li® I \1 I� lr at AHM o� +� U 880- o00 000.1.�' ujin j li o. a j i m l ° t:. Z tSIR � �! iZ 5 A isg 1 d F ti 1. '+• cr NVId 30MV80 V ONIOYtJ'O Wnld30NOO g , e 9om va mvaav •30V3d 0000103 x+ 18I V '3nlao No+aNUnnx .M saI Orfl 'SINWIMANI 4183dOJd OA � ONIOlInS 33:310 1VNOISS33ON'd =P 'SwolI(10 k f minivi2ll5 ONIY NVd 33Ij30 Ivomn aatluA a E � � ul 8 l \ W Z o I { f ,`r�"i� Af LEI 19 ,79 n n �\ V •',f� gj H MR MO WHIM Ri .� 4 .nfr- I w. � i 5+'a 1'�� ♦ ` ,V4A � •I ( . , 1� 1 i�g� €d�E 011 t �SSfrd I �,,✓ �r � 1 ` *` ca 111 cc. ,. _ Lu 'u tu g: ®000 000 555o ®� N � I f g iI t8 lr Y 'P v II e '; j• li® I \1 I� lr at AHM o� +� U 880- o00 000.1.�' ujin j li o. a j i m l ° t:. Z tSIR � �! iZ 5 A isg 1 d F ti 1. '+• cr NV1d 30VNIVF3O V ONIOV89 lYrd 30NO0 � ...._ •nu •..av P a a H �k'tt *, ._•.._ 90016 VO 'VIGV00tl e @ L t9I ?P '1hIti0 h'Ol'JMINOH'M SZI b 3 a� ci i s'i 011 'S,N3AIS3AAI A183dOdd.DA ONIOuno 30L430 IVNOISS330t)d fi i ® j MMOMILS 9NIY.UVd 'SONI011R0 3Oil30 lV0100 # G + 1 CT V02l 73 V-q V' N k�5t; M p � ru r �i 0 3i :1 � m rfi , f ^ r 1 r. q . i I tl ; ' I ' - �. o f�' g •f ` �l 1l � �1 Z(p Ned I.; `� ! ✓ if �.. rR� a �' � �rl � �' \ a od f l -0 5 1_ O e w ti a• CJ16]SHf7R e o zl a pv 1 � Q$ r s N e y r Z €Z B e ;' i 4 :� g 8 8 WIry ,,J ( K- G ); IUJ f n H.,.,_n`•uF ,�Z , I ellU t^�4C soak va al ZZ Y w a e 9 '3Jq�d GGYSG'IGO 'M 181 $ '311160 AOLO\MI 'M 4Zl a71 'sJN3rUS3ANl AINMOYd an s gi'ugt MOM 331330 IVNOlss33Gtld 7 p 38ruo(I8Is 9NINi1Yd 'MMO'lInO 3 1330 l ,� eft k & d �l o, mi W •r ! 8< to' GIs �1 Me I J Poz QQ 7 �' yb H tl 1 ff :.1 z 0 w; ml: r 11 �t wm, 1 d N I 0 0 A 3 i!i ib I zr a I m LL 9 Ti-LIU DproIOTJ _— .. —.J. I qq� 6� W 0 >Y � s y_, A1113dOUd OA ,' xvF | / ( \ \ ' � | s a 1 N"d N011110WRO 9115 xrrY , 3�Y3d WN]'!0'J'M 191 Rs3NN�VJIENL111F171iSC{ a R � roi> msto 4'11'61N31�1SShNiAlN3dgtld'JA ONIt ims S3lddO JVNOISSSdONd V SNnionviS $ a y n f Q AIMONd OA a0l.4do MUM fWON, NV'ld 9119 agov lw � 3DYWOQYtl37YJ A1191 W.4 yJYplg1%Wtltll'M Stt P, r a +cR) mo 011S1NDWASSANIAlNUMVA a d smai1 f163� 1d40IVN01SS3d®Hd8321(11anuis JNINHYd�SONlaing3dow01tl3103W ap 4 9 0 g io HIM! 1 111E M }p�����$ I� \ v � $ 9 '- _ Y on 7o lnr��r�aa c po*o, ®R c- arn in. cnrrrrioorLlur io V7� In. qq t5 3�d9QN]70�'M 191 Vn ':'�do'ld 'A DNIaling 901d410 IVNOIS934OVd Vamu6nklis ,f,4 C, ()I 3OU4 03W I 'S 0 IV3103W E)NIMMI'SONloilne aougo im I L—j �I'J!I�I���II a O 0 Ord a U w z w 0 d a Q u� w a d F- Y @ V W m Z O M U' S vmmins w u F- W w H a d i O w 0 ..i 0. O O 0 O U U W u. d a °a cv a d a N W F w J a ¢ m 4 w z w W �k�as -i ®. d A FON101fing k\ m° o1 O M 6|' �� p m_,m_a_ m » »�i ¥n ■■2d «kQ#$a! �NNIM mo��n�£pwo�,¥ gw t || ( c i�nai • aanaanats ��t��d. a � P � ;� 3�5'idoNRUI�'µ 19t Y- '+3NtlalA1'J.l'fiFnN'M�ZI g e +Un 019'S1N3w1B3ANIA1213dQHdQA aNl®5tn8 3aljdo IVNdiSSSSO Nd %' 3aniOnIUS 4 f SNIWd SONIdiin6 saujo lvalaalw r g p y� r doL LID aunlonvis ONI 6� I P. ama""W" mat :)JI'SINSWIGRANI AJVRdONd CIA 77 F I MR ONi011n a sojj�o lyNoissmud v ainiontas SNINHYdSON1131ing 301440 -tv3l(ialw I I , 1 5 , ' , , L , , � , t � I"' .a: I I � ' : I' � t ' L I'l i ' I ! � � ' � ' � I .! I '. � ' '7 : , I ,,,u,•,.,:•, e , I j, 1, , ! , , j . t' I � .� ' : L 1—, ',0', ": ..',# ;: 1-1- ltli— V1.1 I - I ; . ". — —, vt, . u 14 14 Z-1 doll 0 BED H n! B I I , 1 5 , ' , , L , , � , t � I"' .a: I I � ' : I' � t ' L I'l i ' I ! � � ' � ' � I .! I '. � ' '7 : , I ,,,u,•,.,:•, e , I j, 1, , ! , , j . t' I � .� ' : L 1—, ',0', ": ..',# ;: 1-1- ltli— V1.1 I - I ; . ". — —, vt, . u --- 31"'Un'onm"a all 1611fawMANOlHadoud CA ou v MOVE MA:10 IVNOIS93AOHd V unionvis Sol N ' - 0 0 13v4 ONOWW'SoNfOling BOWO IVOIG IN -.119 r 5 1 n. m o- i F, E ij, IN Prls- emaims Bowo ivNolssaAOvd T UnION10 g OND4 . Hvd,somaims Howo ivola.m. gi . .... . ..... 1 4"\ ,1APP M195, 17 01 and i ei Enato s u ol @2 Efl g r! . .... . ..... 1 4"\ ,1APP M195, r'+u°a pals ra wxrrret Fit I g+� „'�;e" q;� :. 3-Y,4Wtlif3'p'J mm {49md9 #4iZC garore � 1 � II I car I L,' f Bo DE oCE, rcla )ON rLr�rn1, Y I L,' f oo;-� =�Ulgl - z ON'-'!"ni WOW mole �j v alln4onvis oNtaims ao 0 Ivolclaw ON mu SON Itne 30��4 VNIAHVd,soMallne gow:10 Ivolaim L ---------- b�Q t s 41 a s g f� � ��I� 1 96014 ISM jVJ40JSS3I0Vd v It I M FRJ q R u o o Ej [,!,, ht n! 1!.j L�j ri r0l UH I �j H L-j 1�-- IT 1 I III ff�� II Elk El 4. I 0; - I (D 1. Ka Oil 191MR1 1--.1 fill F�o - Oil 191MR1 1--.1 i i i i i r i - ui_ f i i l l i I. -.: i i aniSY,Yxrr.Ate � a �. 8 � �.�� �pruiava?m'm fsi wm�anofines+e.'w atRf sUl €t G'8V91fd Wi�3AN6 A4 %���ETd4A ➢ii�in� 3�Idd7lt1Nomidoid i imnl�no$s n gRIM "0 I L J. _ A 11 F4<O< c oll --l'" ao�ujod" t-t 4 231410 IVDI03W � -'T-' ' T | ' | .� 4- ~ . . | | . � . ---- �-�-�- f- —�� �� � T | T / '.' � . bp- ' If «. s,.wxumt eov�anova3w� 'x�rsre�+3ueaxataawx[xs�zr �,� e in �Wuill AINUoudVA u�ra T ? ? ? 0.._Q. T 4 0 n m : p Q t 8 I LI, BDC7 Cif BED- C7C1 G1ClC]fC71JLlq�C�7 `� f`" -- T ? ? ? 0.._Q. T 4 0 n m : Mming 301440 10018sadoud T RNA11pnNis DNlmwd ISONfoling 301M lv�110 gqqqq q q q Y kyy Vim Wnd dom - t oNicnins 011'SINMOARI KWOdOldd DA WOMB 301:HO IMOISSUOSd T Runionvis Dowd Isomaiing aouio injaw I LL O O CO L------------- - MMIM in Mix $1N3W163ANI MW3dOVd OA Isomaims Rowo W3103w I L----------- a LL E-M fl P a 13,15 W Ch Ctl SNO11338 ONIO-fins Won YDY#QW ire swvoaW m RIM "NuawlOww MWI OlItINSMS9ANIMUBdOWd OA oNtaims 301A,40 1VNOISSBAONd T aunionvis ONIMM'SOMaims Boiddo uncw + L 8---E L jilmilm O� T i _ o.. _ __ . _ ., _ _ . �: w w o TV W Ch Ctl SNO11338 ONIO-fins Won YDY#QW ire swvoaW m RIM "NuawlOww MWI OlItINSMS9ANIMUBdOWd OA oNtaims 301A,40 1VNOISSBAONd T aunionvis ONIMM'SOMaims Boiddo uncw + L 8---E L jilmilm O� T FEW.- �anlanals �JN13l8Vd sNO11VA3�3 � _ a 1 • '� amts wsva,�v ? � � � g 3�YN WYVl1]7'M t4L pt 3Aftl01AtDhYU:%I'MSiI iM in oll'SINSW1$3ANIU93doNdDA a ` ONIa tlne 331ddo laols8giOUd'F atiniJAa1S g 5� p .4 i y DNIXHVd S'JNI{311ft8 3aiddo IVolo31k a a O o (D _ . O . -. a -. . CJ _- 9—.. i X al�r�Q �c�Q�n�nc�nn W o -Al 0 Im Alm Mo-olu 0-11UNMYLOANI AMON DA ONI011ng SD14d0 IVNOISSUOHd v unionuis ONIMMSONlaiins aowo ivoiani ii ii ii II ii ` MINT OJI'ViNavilmll luvadoud VA .~� ` a s 9 3 d� �.s*vwvwror� �y,y,l CIS »YAfafo h � 8 � g a 3�YkOQYNaT1�'JA 191fw3/,hON01'JAV!%9i MRi g e d nti�- 9f�c o7'I S1NBAISSANIII.Si3dM$A a¢ d JNIaimB 3314901VNOISS3dOVd v sanionui s t s `JNINaVd lobmaine 341dd®l maw g �n Y u CBE] B0-D ac000co W 0 O Cl M C- Z 9119'1; Sif 26;a zia;= V DNIGIInG - SNOIIV fz� P, moil vo WOJW wadoWd VA ONfolina aDujo IvNoi . Al smadd v sunionuis DNIMM,sommine 3oujo ivoiam RIVII Ell gig I go o 9 c-8L sea rfmmrwjh*,ij 0--- on 1 C-4 - - -1:1' 1 6 011 %'lNBWMARI AIMUM OA E)Niailne sowdO wolomoad v aunionvis ONDMd'eOhlolins 301.4.4DIV3103W 2 gg 0 BBD 1-3813 BESETilEsIO WN is WIS mm o 011 %'lNBWMARI AIMUM OA E)Niailne sowdO wolomoad v aunionvis ONDMd'eOhlolins 301.4.4DIV3103W 2 gg 0 BBD 1-3813 BESETilEsIO WN is mw VC, --l-5.... -Pl F i � Ill IM) Mil OA / | � � � ' EVER DNIdtlaSaNV 13lln OnVIS ONOWW a { wwm MIS r�YIARI 9�/tdfAYd]'t�]M19l M3Ntlt!lAIW.tUSlli'MRI i iip rhS34 011 S1NSW1SSANI AlHAdOHd DA w .,�F+uwn rya :itd�llpllnS 391dd0 ik�N()I &S�d02ld'8 3a111Jn�31S ILL -Z In �osat axlaual�al ONIMM'somallne 33Ig9Q ivoia Vd 4 2 1YwYa —.—. Prom.., sNOilvinowo Qwidio okv l aW Nissan �:' � 5 V1116 rr nonxr r$ S w a i�r. R ri ra � yaws ml 3�YMOOYtlQ7YJ RAt91FA3MR0M?1QNUtY4'1 AlYtl 0111IN ISRANI uaadoad on Dc ^per °°^" JNnIQ lin8 ��t��O l4' issado-od'F 3anionv1S c y c S +DI>omt+N Wr Dw� Q � ¢� 9 • Q F li oo5 =y �� Qz�aua��A1 __..w? JNINNdd'S9MQ'iin8 H�lddO'iV�i ©� s �' 4 R C. e k „ R F u e -� ryQ1�NI�N'rlYy N v n f Nb5 f i t m. tid�fNL�NtOLOHd��ta d1 °_ 'W rTH B701i07Vila'10?'K.{B{►�+W mBg10lBINMIYEB{ F ceew�(° ro, �r�ipnrorvauo�st���adrnm A ^aLLyxvo:lTlasaavcxi l% anrommrualsi��Nd�tertmnwrraMoasw�Vwuosmwvanrtn�wmawa ++TMes+e vx�wroitssa +.rNdua�moWlzrcNanewrilnoahai ro2wvcu.rE.e w�P nu +�mw�o.mn[wsahreirwa�o.>tnK. �rauwitlo-mmmowawfa�ava • E ! ! 5e E [( yp����Yk��g�FF�.ii �ai6E■[■ a��yg{g{ , asa w I I IM UP. dal s 8 c x , F ceew�(° ro, �r�ipnrorvauo�st���adrnm A ^aLLyxvo:lTlasaavcxi l% anrommrualsi��Nd�tertmnwrraMoasw�Vwuosmwvanrtn�wmawa ++TMes+e vx�wroitssa +.rNdua�moWlzrcNanewrilnoahai ro2wvcu.rE.e w�P nu +�mw�o.mn[wsahreirwa�o.>tnK. �rauwitlo-mmmowawfa�ava N�O,LflbEd �Jtnrtt� T-13= Imlawyam ...Pfa.:. a;rcmo�wa•mrotr+a�aaw+aanxuw n , >rs 471 Aliiidt>�dk1A enlavne �5td3Q ®IS83d ®�d 3l1AS F1 e ® ®® Q a's9ura�n� ®-naval g ••••••• ym> o> H[ roivdwufue, �neuvanmwmmu�afq+ aKxevd ]N.1da�a�wmmeal6iMe.UmB[w� TMa41rix. H.a PewwWH. 50-11aexGaNKdVW° TtW .*wwsuaxwOC.'mewl�sl»WdfiemA't ml IBM! wit ml oil MUM rT RWRLUM*Algl F Mill, MUM rT RWRLUM*Algl F Lind 91UM A1®Hd d L �elev�Yaratt f i l l Wd ggpBJNtIW'MWI V+kV§X71671Gd11YA19.1R6 a� Y:Nf ®td14lHl3913dt)'['dPtd���.� gift 'a ( � � �m�F^!•reHn �oiW iaorvti4Faamie��Mr�ritleiM bl@ 4u6F= a�. �eJd9�x�mwrodMr* PVC4wk�nilwmtlbeN.' �twivsuoltxi�svtlNmt+ miF* W�' mrumu�atrrcwraYataea�wmm,'ilmviNi a+ mPwW: n3. d9'^ T�tln. Vtilawks�RM�' ecuwwmM?�6� >sMdw.WMUTH+a�LNttaet¢CGn1 k 9 5pp Y k ee m 4 € fill s g P Lind 91UM A1®Hd d L �elev�Yaratt f i l l Wd ggpBJNtIW'MWI V+kV§X71671Gd11YA19.1R6 a� Y:Nf ®td14lHl3913dt)'['dPtd���.� gift 'a ( � � �m�F^!•reHn �oiW iaorvti4Faamie��Mr�ritleiM bl@ 4u6F= a�. �eJd9�x�mwrodMr* PVC4wk�nilwmtlbeN.' �twivsuoltxi�svtlNmt+ miF* W�' mrumu�atrrcwraYataea�wmm,'ilmviNi a+ mPwW: n3. d9'^ T�tln. Vtilawks�RM�' ecuwwmM?�6� >sMdw.WMUTH+a�LNttaet¢CGn1 di 1 II o 20 F : ooh N if di 1 II o 20 F : ooh C) W 'o U) ii LO g N jj S 0 mw < 1-- 01— C) N U) Z Ln 0 0 0 c co Ln < m 41 Opp, '01 ft at Gs Srr TV All All, !9.v 514 JAI 1 _1A r. p-o' NV, ,s 8 49161 M ILP 'Ll 6j;' 9/v d+ V V K4 1k I'll Nub let jr 4. W Ali 0 N\\ 4M. lip, Z3 NIP. i1nnshint padhm M=n r-Iff-lihif R � 1 '... � � � 1 ; ,