Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1dSTAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: April 9, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP 13 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 13- 01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13 -01, ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 13 -01, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13- 04 FOR A 4- STORY, 70,096 SQUARE -FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. Recommendation: Recommend Conditional Approval to the City Council by Approval of Resolution No. 1869 SUMMARY The applicant proposes to build a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building with a 366 -space surface parking lot at 289 W. Huntington Drive, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting the proposed building with the Methodist Hospital property at 300 W. Huntington Drive. The project site at 289 W. Huntington Drive consists of 185,177 square -feet (4.25 acres) of the 301 -acre Santa Anita Park property, and is within the southerly 85 -acre development area designated for future commercial development. The proposed project requires approval of the following applications: • A Specific Plan to develop 4.25 acres of the Santa Anita Park property with a medical office development. • A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 185,177 square -feet (4.25 acres) from two existing parcels totaling 13,143,859 square -feet (301 acres). • A General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan Designation from Santa Anita Commercial (0.3 FAR) to Commercial (0.5 FAR). • A Zone Change to revise the zoning from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan — Santa Anital ). • Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed building and pedestrian bridge. It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of these applications to the City Council, subject to the conditions listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Mr. Dick Hale (Hale Corporation), Developer LOCATION: 289 W. Huntington Drive — A 4.25 -acre site to the southwest of the intersection of westbound Huntington Drive and Centennial Place — see attached aerial photo. REQUESTS: Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04 for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development. FRONTAGES: The subject site has a 516 -foot frontage on Huntington Drive. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site is a portion of the parking lot at the eastern edge of Santa Anita Park. The site is currently zoned S -1, Special Uses. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Santa Anita Park Racetrack and surface parking lot, zoned S -1 (Special Uses) South: Medical Office Development, zoned C -O -H6 (Commercial Office with a Height Overlay of 6- stories) East: Methodist Hospital, zoned S -2 (Public Purpose) West: Santa Anita Park surface parking lot, zoned S -1 (Special Uses) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Santa Anita Commercial (0.3 FAR) — The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging, professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and entertainment uses. The Santa Anita 0.3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) was put in place in 1996 as a way to ensure that development of the 85 -acre site designated for commercial development did not overwhelm the grandstand and other surrounding uses. The Santa Anita Park property encompasses approximately 301 acres, bounded by Huntington Drive on the south and east, Baldwin Avenue and the Westfield Santa Anita SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 2 of 18 mall on the west, and Colorado Place on the north and east (see attached aerial photo). The major elements of the site consist of the dirt and turf tracks, infield area, Grandstand and clubhouse structures, Paddock Gardens and related buildings to the south of the Grandstand, and other various ancillary uses, including stables, grooms quarters, maintenance facilities /yard and surface parking Tots with approximately 15,550 parking spaces. The proposed project would be developed on 4.25 acres of the 301 acre site, located in the parking lot area. South of the Santa Anita Park property across Huntington Drive are multi - family and single - family residential uses, a convalescent home, Holy Angels Church and Elementary School, Holly Avenue School and the Baldwin Avenue commercial area. Properties to the southeast and east of the site are developed with the Methodist Hospital and associated medical offices, Arcadia City Hall and Police Station, Chamber of Commerce, Community Center and Historical Museum as well as the Civic Center Athletic Field. Santa Anita Park opens annually on December 26, with daily racing continuing through late April. Santa Anita's autumn meeting operates from late September or early October to early November every year. Live racing is typically Thursday through Sunday and holiday Mondays. In addition, wagering facilities, closed - circuit TV simulcasts of racing and limited food services are provided during satellite wagering periods the remainder of the year for wagering on other racing at racetracks in California and across the country. In August 2006, the Keeper of the National Register determined that portions of Santa Anita Park were eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The proposed project does not impact this determination as it does not impact any of the existing structures on site. The zoning of the site is a combination of S -1 (Special Use Zone -Horse Racing) and R -1 (Single - Family Residential). The S -1 & R -1 zoning of Santa Anita Park have been in place since the 1950's. The S -1 zone, where the subject property is located, permits horse racing and related uses and encompasses much of the Santa Anita Park property. The medical office building property directly to the southwest is zoned CO -H6 (Commercial Office with a Height Overlay of 6 stories). This property was subdivided from the Santa Anita Park property in 1985, and construction of the medical office development was completed in 1987. A pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive connects the medical office building with Methodist Hospital. DISCUSSION The proposal would develop a 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park parking lot with a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building and 366 -space surface parking lot. A pedestrian aerial bridge across Huntington Drive connecting the .proposed SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 3 of 18 development with the Methodist Hospital property is also proposed. The project has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.38. The new 4 -story medical office building would have a maximum height of 63' -6 ". The architecture is contemporary in style featuring blue -green colored spandrel glass, off - white and tan colored walls, aluminum storefront windows and glass, and slate accent tiles. The proposed materials, colors, and details are characteristic of contemporary commercial office buildings. It is recommended that the design of the east, west, and south elevations of the building be enhanced to have a higher quality appearance consistent with the north elevation. A detailed discussion of this issue is presented later in this staff report within the Architectural Design section. The pedestrian bridge would extend from the second -floor of the office building at the east elevation and cross Huntington Drive with a 15 -foot height clearance to a proposed elevator tower on the Methodist Hospital property. The elevator tower is proposed at approximately 28 -feet in height and is situated in a landscaped area adjacent to the Methodist Hospital building. It will not connect directly with any of the Medical Center buildings. The use of the pedestrian bridge would be restricted to physicians and authorized medical office personnel. The existing medical office building at 301 W. Huntington Drive has a similar pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive, however this bridge connects directly with the second -floor of the hospital. It is recommended that the following revisions be made to the pedestrian bridge and elevator tower to improve the safety and visual esthetics of these structures: • Revise the exterior finishes of the elevator tower and support column of the pedestrian bridge to more closely match the colors and materials of the hospital building. • Revise the location of the elevator tower at the hospital property to be outside of the driveway visibility triangle. • Revise the location of the pedestrian bridge support column at the west -side of Huntington Drive to be set back a minimum of 18- inches from the sidewalk to be consistent with the City's standard requirement for columns. Refer to the Architectural Design section of this staff report for a detailed discussion of these recommended revisions. The surface parking lot includes 366 parking spaces, with ingress and egress to the parking lot at Huntington Drive, Centennial Way, and an interior roadway of Santa Anita Park. There is a 60 -foot long passenger loading area near the northwest corner of the building. A 40' x 18' commercial loading area is proposed in the southwest corner of the parking lot. A parking agreement has been reached between the developer and Santa Anita Park that would allow the Racetrack to utilize the medical office parking spaces on all Saturdays and Sundays, public holidays, weekdays after 6:00 p.m., and when a SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 4 of 18 Breeder's Cup Event is held. City approval of the final version of the parking agreement is recommended as a condition of approval. This project requires approval of applications for a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Tentative Parcel Map, and Architectural Design Review Application. Each of these applications is described below. Specific Plan In 1996, the City adopted General Plan policies that designated 85 acres of the southerly Racetrack parking lot as "Commercial" and described the type of project envisioned for this area. In the 2010 update of the General Plan, this language was left intact. Specifically, the General Plan states that "new development within the portion of the Racetrack designated Commercial is to be implemented through a Specific Plan ". Even though a single medical office building is not the target for such a process, it is important that the Hale Medical Center project is processed as a Specific Plan in accordance with Sections 9296 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code. These sections of the Municipal Code establish the authority for a legislative body to adopt a Specific Plan when it is in the public interest to do so. A specific plan is a legislative tool that implements the General Plan by combining zoning requirements and development regulations that are tailored to a specific property or location. Specific plans are commonly used for unique sites, large sites, or areas that require special attention. The Santa Anita Park property is clearly a unique site within the City of Arcadia, however, the proposed project represents only 4.25 acres of the 85 acres designated for commercial development. Because the Specific Plan process is typically only initiated for parcels far greater in size, the Staff brought the concept of this project to the City Council on October 2, 2012 (see attached study session minutes). The City Council reasoned that a Specific Plan would be the appropriate process in this case, to be consistent with the General Plan and the importance of this overall site. The Council did express concern with the possibility that by "breaking off' this 4.25 acre parcel, the commercially- designated 85 acres of the site would be "piecemealed" and not developed in a consistent fashion. After discussion, it was determined that the project concept could move forward as a Specific Plan because of the location and synergy with the hospital and the existing 301 W. Huntington Office building. However, the City Council clearly articulated that they felt that the remainder of the commercial property on the Santa Anita property should be part of a cohesive master plan for the site, and that additional small -scale use of the parking area would need to be part of a coordinated phasing plan for the development of the site. Based on this, a Specific Plan has been proposed for the project. A typical Specific Plan includes a wide range of uses, a large property area, unique infrastructure and public service demands, and often phased development. Because it is a simple, single medical office building, the Hale Medical Center Specific Plan (Specific Plan) will essentially be the development plan for the site. As such, it will be considered as an Ordinance with the City Council and will be presented similar to a SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 5 of 18 Conditional Use Permit or like planning document. The Specific Plan will include the site plan for the development, the conditions of approval, the Initial Environmental Study and Mitigation Measures, and the associated technical studies that were prepared for the project. If approved, the Specific Plan will be incorporated into the Arcadia Municipal Code, and will be shown as such on the official Zoning Map of the City as SP -SA1 (Specific Plan, Santa Anita 1). The Specific Plan includes development standards tailored to this site. Standards include building height, setbacks from Huntington Drive, lighting, parking, loading, and signage. The Specific Plan also includes architectural elevations, a landscape plan, etc. The project has been developed mostly in accordance with the Commercial Office zoning, including a Height Overlay of six stories or 60 feet (CO -H6). This is the zoning of the adjacent property (301 West Huntington Drive) and is the most logical and consistent zoning for this site and location to use as a model. The proposed Specific Plan development standards match the development standards of the CO -H6 zoning /height overlay, with the following minor variations: • A maximum building height of 63' -6" height in lieu of 60' -0" • Parking lot landscaping as proposed in lieu of 10% of the total parking lot area and one tree for every five parking spaces • Passenger and commercial loading as proposed in lieu of seven 25' x 10' striped loading spaces for a 70,096 square -foot commercial building The surface parking lot includes 366 total spaces, with ingress and egress to the parking lot at Huntington Drive, Centennial Way, and an internal roadway of Santa Anita Park at the west perimeter of the site. The parking requirement for this project is subject to the development standards of the Specific Plan, which in accordance with CO -H6 zoning requires 350 parking spaces. With 366 spaces provided, the project has a parking surplus of 16 spaces. A 60 -foot long loading area is proposed near the northeast corner of the building. A 40' x 18' commercial loading /delivery area is provided in the southwest corner of the parking lot. A parking agreement between Santa Anita Park and the developer has been reached and would allow the Racetrack to utilize the medical office parking spaces on all Saturdays and Sundays, public holidays, weekdays after 6:00 p.m., and when a Breeder's Cup Event is held. City approval of the final version of the parking agreement is recommended as a condition of approval. The site plan and Initial Environmental Study provide information on transportation and circulation, existing and proposed water facilities, existing and proposed sewer /wastewater facilities, solid waste facilities, stormwater /drainage facilities, utilities, and information on police and fire protection. With the mitigation measures and conditions outlined in this staff report, the project will comply with all City and State requirements. A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 6 of 18 (LLG) to forecast peak hour vehicle trip generation, anticipate distribution of project vehicle trips, and analyze existing intersection /corridor operations. The following intersections were studied: 1. Baldwin Avenue /Huntington Drive 2. Gate 3 -Holly Avenue /Huntington Drive 3. Colorado Place /Huntington Drive 4. Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive 5. Santa Anita Avenue /Huntington Drive 6. Centennial Way/West Huntington Drive 7. Centennial Way /East Huntington Drive Based on the analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 172 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 257 trips during the PM peak hour, and 2,602 total trips on a typical weekday. It was concluded that the proposed project will not create significant traffic impacts at any of the study intersections, and the levels -of- service (LOS) will remain the same. A copy of the findings from the Traffic Impact Analysis are included as an attachment to this staff report. The proposed project will be tied -in to the existing sewer main on Huntington Drive, which is considered to be deficient according to the City's Public Works Department. Based on the Los Angeles County Average Daily Sewage Design Standard, estimated tributary flow to the sewer system from the new project will be substantially more than the previous loading from the property. Based on the load calculations provided by the Applicant, Arcadia's Public Works Department determined that in all cases, the flow would be considered greater than the design capacity of the existing pipe. A project to address the current sewer main deficiency is under consideration in the City's Capital Improvement Program to design the necessary improvements in Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 and to construct the improvements in Fiscal Year 2015 -2016. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer shall perform an area study to determine what effect this project will have on 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, if the necessary improvements have not been constructed, the developer shall be required to construct the necessary improvements and a reimbursement agreement will be developed to reimburse the developer for the cost of the project with the exception of the fair share contribution. The above requirement is included in the recommended conditions of approval for this project. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 7 of 18 Implementation of the Specific Plan will require coordination between the developer and the property owner of the Racetrack. This partnership will pay for all on -site improvements and will pay for all off -site improvements needed to mitigate specific impacts of the development identified in the Initial Environmental Study. For the complete list of mitigations and Project requirements, both on and off site, please see the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Part of the review of a Specific Plan document is to determine whether there is a need for a market study or market feasibility analysis. In this case, although the proposed project is a single -use project, it was concluded that there was a need to have a greater understanding of the demand for medical office uses in the City of Arcadia. This was primarily due to the fact that, recently, a project proposing 40,000 square feet of medical office space was approved by the City Council. In addition, the subject project is 70,000 square feet in size and there is the possibility of a third medical office building project under consideration. The Development Services Department retained the services of Keyser Marston Associates to evaluate the medical office market conditions in this area. The "Arcadia Office Market Study" reviewed socio- economic characteristics, employment and business information, an office overview, broker interviews, and a number of additional details to evaluate demand for medical. Among the conclusions of the report, Keyser Marston states that over the next five years there is approximately 80,000 square feet of market support (including the filling of vacant space and areas outside the City) for medical space. Brokers indicate that there is near term demand of between 30,000- 60,000 square feet of medical office demand in the area. Finally, the Study concludes that there is approximately 280,000 square feet of medical related office space potential within the three -mile market area in the next 15 years. A copy of the market study is included as an attachment to this staff report. If the subject property AND the previously approved project at 161 Colorado Place are both constructed, this would provide 110,000 square feet of medical office space in close proximity to Methodist Hospital. While this exceeds the Study's projections of local near -term demand for medical office space, it also presents an opportunity to contain the majority of the expected future demand within the three -mile area to the City of Arcadia. The applicant indicates that he has lease commitments to fill 60% of his proposed square footage. Interpretation of the provisions of the Specific Plan is the responsibility of the Development Services Director. This authority extends to determining "substantial conformance" with the standards, regulations, and guidelines of the Specific Plan and all associated documents. The use of substantial conformance includes: 1. Determinations regarding issues, conditions, or situations that arise that are not addressed by the Specific Plan. 2. Approval of signs in compliance with the standards of the CO -H6 zoning designation. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 8 of 18 3. Additions, deletions and changes to the Specific Plan exhibits or text that substantially comply with the Specific Plan. 4. Adjustments to the site plan, building elevations, and all other conceptual plans. The Director may make a decision on the above issues, with or without conditions, or can refer a decision to the Planning Commission and /or City Council at a noticed public hearing. Notice shall be provided in the official newspaper of general circulation. If necessary, additional CEQA review and /or analysis will be conducted to determine the impacts of the request. Determinations of substantial conformance shall be made based on findings that the request: 1. Substantially conforms to all applicable provisions of the Specific Plan. 2. Will not adversely affect public health and safety. 3. Will not adversely affect adjacent property. General Plan Amendment In September 1996, the City Council adopted a General Plan update. As a result of the many public hearings relating to that update and, in particular, Santa Anita Park, 85 acres of the southerly Racetrack parking lot previously designated for "Horse Racing" was changed to "Commercial" with a .30 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Further, in the Community Development Section of the General Plan, it identified "Land Use Transitions ", noting that the "Arcadia General Plan projects land use patterns well into the future and it plans for an increase in the intensity of development. Key to this approach are four areas which are currently undergoing transition or possess opportunity for transition in the future." One of the areas identified was the Santa Anita Racetrack. The General Plan incorporates specific language regarding these four areas. In the "Santa Anita Racetrack" portion, the text notes in part: "The Santa Anita Racetrack is a key community feature, and an important component of Arcadia's character. The retention of live horse racing at this facility, and the ongoing economic vitality of the Racetrack are also critical to Arcadia's future fiscal health. Over the past ten years, there has been a reduction in attendance at the Santa Anita Racetrack, largely due to the advent of off -track wagering facilities and a long -term downturn in the racing industry. As a result, it is no longer necessary to reserve both of the Racetrack's large open parking areas exclusively for Racetrack event parking. The combination of dwindling attendance and the potential availability of a portion of the Racetrack's parking areas for other uses has given rise to much community discussion regarding the positives and negatives of permitting additional uses within the Racetrack's parking areas. It is Arcadia's long -term vision to retain live horse racing at the Santa Anita Racetrack and to preserve the existing Grandstand structure. There also exists the opportunity to create a development of urban intensity in the Racetrack's southerly [emphasis added] parking lot which recognizes the unique attributes of the Racetrack to the north and the SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 9 of 18 Santa Anita Fashion Park mall to the west and to cultivate this unique combination of regional attractions in a cohesive center...." The General Plan also sets forth guidelines for development within this area including: • Discussion of the mix of uses • Urban Design • Circulation and Parking • Public Safety • Phasing and Intensity Several major projects have been submitted for the site since the adoption of this general plan language. Most notably, in 2007, the City approved the "Shops at Santa Anita" project from Caruso Affiliated. The Shops at Santa Anita project was consistent with the General Plan and was approved unanimously by the City Council. This project proposed an 804,250 square foot lifestyle center with a number of outstanding amenities in the southern racetrack parking area. This project would have realized the City's General Plan vision for this location, but it has been withdrawn. Following the approval of the Caruso project, the City underwent a substantial General Plan Update. Concluding in 2010, the Update included substantial review of the language included for this property. The determination was made that the vision for the area was the same as it had been in 1996; thus there were no changes proposed to the existing language. The only new language added to the General Plan was relative to any project that might occur in the event that horse racing no longer occurs on site. Clearly, the detailed language included in the General Plan is intended for a large, integrated commercial /retail project. Therefore, the vast majority of the General Plan language is not applicable to the current project. Nevertheless, it is important to evaluate this project in accordance with the General Plan to ensure that the development of this portion of Santa Anita Park is not developed in a way that would inhibit future development envisioned in the General Plan. The Hale Medical Center Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan language. As has been stated, the General Plan is focused on a large commercial development in the southern parking lot. This project represents only 5% of the commercially designated property on the Racetrack property and 1.4% of the entire site. The General Plan states, on page 2 -66 that "Office uses should at most be a minor portion of new development and be supportive of the overall commercial character of the site ". There is no master plan yet for the remainder of the 85 acres in question, but the concept of a medical office building in this location was taken to the City Council on October 2, 2012 and the Council agreed that a Specific Plan for this small portion of the racetrack property was acceptable, but that. they were concerned with piecemeal development of the site. Page 2 -69 of the General Plan states that, "It is likely that new development will occur in a SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 10 of 18 number of increments. Individual increments need to yield a cohesive, viable uses, and should not be predicated on the construction of a subsequent increment. Development needs to appear mix of ppear complete." This is the first "increment" to be developed, but as such it meets the intent of the General Plan and does not conflict General Plan goals. ct with any The only actual General Plan Amendment that is required concerns Floor The entire 85 acres of the southerly racetrack property includes a FAR Overlay Area Ratio. This was put in place in 1996 as a way to ensure that development of all 85 acres of did 0.3. not overwhelm the grandstand and other surrounding uses. However, this is the found anywhere in the City. The vast majority 85 acres did including the adjacent 301 W. Huntington Drive property, he lowest J y of commercial property in the City, this Specific Plan will only apply to the 4.25 acre property has in 0.5. Because applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the FAR to proposal, .5 to the consistent with the adjacent property and the rest of the commercial property in 'S a be In actuality, the FAR proposed is less than 0.5, as the 70,096 square foot y Arcadia. building represents an FAR of 0.38 on this site, medical office This amendment reflects the unique nature of this site. The General Plan of applicable strategies and overall goals for the subject property, including a number preserve views of the Racetrack from Huntington Drive to the south. Because of flat topography of the site, this goal conflicts with ng a goal to within the General Plan for a "development of urban intensity" f the the extensive language lot. Essentially, almost any development of "urban intensity" in this area would, parking nature, obstruct views of the Racetrack Grandstand. The General Plan's recognition by its an opportunity for development of some intensity on the southerly ganion e of language within the General Plan identifying a specific plan as the appropriate the site suggest a unique development opportunity parking lot and the The proposed building is compliant with any commercial pp °priate tool for y not present in other parts of the City. does not include a parking structure, and does not convey an zone in ma City, appearance in this area. For these reasons, the increase in FAR for this rlp is appropriate. property is The General Plan provides detail on the protection of views of the Grands tand. These views of the Grandstand from Huntington Drive are important to the co Similarly, the Racetrack itself and the identification of this area as a site for a project reect of y. urban intensity are also important to the community. The project is oriented in the best possible location on the site to preserve views. The building is oriented with its narrow axis towards Huntington Drive. Motorists, pedestrians, etc. can only move east-west down Huntington Drive in this area. Views of the grandstand will remain intact alon g this stretch of Huntington until an individual is directly adjacent to the new building. In fact, the existing 301 W. Huntington Drive building is situated in a similar manner to the proposed structure. As such, no General Plan Amendment is needed related to view preservation of the Grandstand and no additional Amendments to the General Plan are sought. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & AD R 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 11 of 18 Zone Change Currently, the 85 southern acres of the Santa Anita Park site are " over the 4.25 and R-1. acre The addition of the Specific Plan will create a new zone of map showing the proposed report. site. The rest of the site will ort. The proposed breakdown of the zoning is shown revision is attached to this staff in the table below. Hale Medical Center — Medical Office Use t within the SP -SA1 zone will be consistent with the r of the site. the All development language Specific Plan. zone an be no ollowin to section would replace the existing facilitate the zone change, the following within Section 9231 Establishment of Zones in the Arcadia Municipal Code: 9231.21 SP -SA1. Specific Plan — Santa Anital zoning changes to the Santa The Zoning Map would be revised to reflect the proposed would replace the existing Anita Park property. In addition, the following section w language in Section 9297: 9297 Specific Plan — Hale Medical Center Tentative Parcel Map The proposed Tentative Parcel Map would subdivide 4.25 acres from two existing 'n 301.74 acres. Subdividing the development Unl'kef the med cal of office parcels totaling of the site. property will facilitate the sale or leasing Anita Park development at 301 W. Huntington Drive, this site would remain and connected to ofanta Anita Park property by three vehicular driveways at the lot. A parking agreement has been reached between the section developer and the the owners to P owners of Santa Anita Park (see discussion in the Specific report). The new parcel complies with all of the City's subdivision requirements. properties, ament . To ensure that vehicular access remains o be added the Map as a condition of access easement is recommended approval. Architectural Design Santa Anita Park is a world class site and any new De should read as an to the design addition to this site. The Development Services p proposal was that the elevations, while complementary to Methodist Hospital, were SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC , & ADR 13 289 w 13 -01 Huntin9ton Drive 04 Apri19, 2013 Page 120f 1R rather generic in appearance for this particular site. The recommendation to the developer was to consider additional design features, architectural treatments, building articulation, site amenities, decorative pavers, landscaping, or other unique features to make the project an excellent addition to the site; particularly at the east elevation. In response to this comment, slate tile treatments were added to the east elevation at the junction of the pedestrian bridge. The remainder of the design appears as originally proposed. As discussed earlier, the architecture of the new medical building is contemporary in style featuring blue -green colored spandrel glass, off -white and tan colored walls, aluminum storefront windows and glass, and slate accent tiles. The proposed materials, colors, and details are characteristic of contemporary commercial office buildings. The north -side of the building is the public entrance and most visible side of the building based on its orientation to southbound traffic on Huntington Drive and unobstructed sightlines from the north. As such, the north elevation has been designed to be the focal point of the building with a curved central glass curtain with aluminum band accents, and a covered entry porch featuring slate tiles and an aluminum clad canopy. No revisions are recommended to this elevation as the design of this side of the building creates a positive impression that reads as an excellent addition to the site. The east -side of the building facing Huntington Drive has a clean yet basic appearance, with the exception of the pedestrian bridge connection where decorative slate tile and a small metal awning canopy have been added. It is recommended that further revisions be made to this elevation to improve its overall appearance, and to create a transition between the building and bridge that reads as an integrated part of the design. One possible solution is to create a curved central glass curtain similar to what is proposed at the north elevation, but smaller in size. The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of this revision in their recommendation to the City Council. The west and south sides of the building facing the adjacent medical office and the Santa Anita Park Grandstands are clean yet basic in appearance. The south and west sides of the building will not be highly visible from the public streets, but will be visible to the adjacent medical office development and the surrounding Santa Anita Park property. These sides of the building would also be highly visible to any future development that occurs at the Santa Anita Park property. It is recommended that additional design features be added to these elevations to improve their appearance and relate more closely with the front of the building. One possible solution is to add minor glass curtain projections at several points along the south elevation, and in a central location at the west elevation. Photos showing examples of this type of architectural design element from the Methodist Hospital Medical Center are included as an attachment to this staff report. The Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of this revision in their recommendation to the City Council. The proposed design of the pedestrian bridge consists of gray metal paneling and open metal railings with slate tile for the support column and elevator tower at the Methodist Hospital property. The slate tile is a quality material, but using it as the primary exterior SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 13 of 18 finish for the support column and elevator tower may result in too heavy an appearance. It is recommended that the slate tile material be used as an accent on the support column and tower rather than the primary exterior material. For the support column, one possible solution is to limit the slate to the 2 -foot planter bed at the base of the column. For the elevator tower, one possible solution is to limit the slate to the bottom 2 -to -4 feet of the elevator tower and /or the architectural columns and lower doorway treatments on the west side of the tower. The remainder of the tower and support columns would be revised to match the colors and treatments of the exterior walls of the Methodist Hospital building and /or medical office building. An option to add a cover to the pedestrian bridge is shown on page A -0 of the site plan. It is recommended that the bridge remain uncovered as shown in the perspective drawings, as a covered bridge would result in a greater visual impact. The bridge will be limited to physicians and medical personnel, therefore a cover is not needed, for instance, to shield patients from the elements. New trees are proposed within the interior of the parking lot and within the paved front patio. Existing mature trees will remain along the north and west perimeters of the site. Landscaping consisting of low shrubs is proposed between the building and the sidewalk on Huntington Drive. It is recommended that enhanced landscaping consisting of a variety of plants, bushes, trees, and other landscape architecture features be added to this area to increase the curb appeal of the project. A 5 -foot landscaped buffer is also recommended between the parking lot and the east property line along Huntington Drive to be consistent with the City's parking lot landscaping standards that require a minimum 5 -foot buffer. It is recommended that a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan be required to be submitted prior to final approval of this project to ensure that the landscaping is appropriately designed. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. With the mitigation measures, the project was determined to have less than significant impacts. A detailed review is included in the Initial Study. The City has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Initial Study /Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public review, for a period of 20 days (March 19, 2013 to April 8, 2013). 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 environmental determination is based. These documents were made available at Arcadia City Hall and at the Arcadia Public Library. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 14 of 18 PUBLIC NOTICE /COMMENTS Public hearing notices for this item were mailed on March 19, 2013 to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 1000 feet of the subject property — see the attached radius map. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the public hearing notice was published in the Arcadia Weekly on March 18, 2013, including the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration, which was filed with the L.A. County Recorder's Office for the required 20- day posting on March 15, 2013. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department is recommending approval of Resolution No. 1869, which recommends approval to the City Council of Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No ADR 13 -04 for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final map for the Tentative Parcel Map shall include a vehicular access easement at the north and west sides of the new 4.25 acre parcel with the remaining Santa Anita Park property. Prior to final approval of the medical office building, the final map for the Tentative Parcel Map shall be approved and recorded at the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. 2. The south, east, and west elevations of the building shall be revised to incorporate glass curtain projections or other appropriate design elements into the design that will enhance the appearance of these elevations of the building to more closely match the design of the north elevation. The revised elevations shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. 3. The elevator tower at the Methodist Hospital site and pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive shall be revised as follows: • The location of the elevator tower shall be relocated outside of all driveway visibility areas. The specific location shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. • The design of the elevator tower shall be revised to limit the use of slate tile to a secondary accent material. The remainder of the tower shall feature materials, colors, and details consistent with the adjacent Methodist Hospital building. The revised design shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. • The design of the pedestrian bridge support column shall be revised to limit the use of slate tile to a secondary accent material. The remainder of the facade shall feature materials, colors, and details consistent with the medical office building. The revised design shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 15 of 18 • The location of the pedestrian bridge support column at the west -side of Huntington Drive shall be set back a minimum of 18- inches from the adjacent sidewalk. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed landscaping and irrigation plan shall be prepared for the project site. The landscaping between the building and Huntington Drive shall be revised to incorporate a variety of plants, bushes, trees, and other landscape architecture features to give the development improved curb appeal. A 5 -foot wide landscaped buffer shall be added between the parking lot and the east property line fronting Huntington Drive. The revised landscaping shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. If 2,500 square - feet or more of rehabilitated and /or new landscaping is proposed, the project shall comply with the requirements of the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. 5. A project to address the current sewer main deficiency is under consideration in the City's Capital Improvement Program to design the necessary improvements in Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 and to construct the improvements in Fiscal Year 2015- 2016. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer shall perform an area study to determine what effect this project will have on 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, if the necessary improvements have not been constructed, the developer shall be required to construct the necessary improvements and a reimbursement agreement will be prepared to reimburse the developer for the cost of the project with the exception of the fair share contribution. 6. A parking agreement shall be required to allow Santa Anita Park to utilize the parking lot of the medical office development on all Saturdays and Sundays, public holidays, weekdays after 6:00 p.m., and when a Breeder's Cup Event is held. The City shall review and approve the final version of the parking agreement prior to the issuance of any building permits. Any changes or alterations to the approved parking agreement shall be subject to the City's review and approval. 7. A license agreement with the City shall be obtained for construction of the aerial bridge across Huntington Drive. 8. The project shall comply with all of the conditions and mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for this project. 9. 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, Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the facilities or SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 16 of 18 structures may be subject to the issuance of permits after having fully detailed plans submitted to the City for plan check review and approval. 10. 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 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Approval of these applications shall not become effective until the property owner(s) and applicant(s) have executed and filed an Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should consider the project proposal and staffs analysis and recommendations, approve Resolution No. 1869, and direct staff to convey the Commission's recommendations and comments on Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04 and the Negative Declaration to the City Council for their consideration at a public hearing. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the April 9, 2013 hearing, please contact Associate Planner, Tim Schwehr at (626) 574 -5422 or tschwehr(a�ci.arcadia.ca.us SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 17 of 18 Approved: -- .'f(WP Jim Kasai Commun Attachments: evelopment Administrator Aerial Photos with Zoning Information City Council Study Session Minutes from October 2, 2012 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Traffic Impact Analysis Findings Arcadia Office Market Study Proposed Revisions to Zoning Map Photos of the Subject Site and Surrounding Properties Photo Examples of Glass Curtain Design Element Architectural Plans & Renderings Resolution No. 1869 Radius Map SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive April 9, 2013 Page 18 of 18 Santa Anita Park Property SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Proposed 54:0113 CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2012 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Council Member Kovacic, Segal, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: Council Member Amundson A motion was made by Council Member Wuo, seconded by Council Member Segal to excuse Council Member Amundson from this meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) — No one appeared. STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction concerning a potential specific plan application for a medical office building on Santa Anita Racetrack property — 285 West Huntington Drive. Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director, presented the staff report. Dick Hale from The Hale Builders & Developers, presented conceptual drawings of a new medical office building; and provided an overview of the proposed project. The City Council directed staff to proceed through the required Specific Plan process for a medical office building on Santa Anita Racetrack property at 285 West Huntington Drive. The Study Session ended at 6:28 p.m. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Harbicht called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION - Reverend Stephen Wilson, Church of the Good Shepherd PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Tom Tait, Public Works Services Director ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council Member Kovacic, Segal, Wuo and Harbicht ABSENT: Council Member Amundson A motion was made by Council Member Kovacic, seconded by Council Member Wuo to excuse Council Member Amundson from this meeting. 10 -02 -12 INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A SPECIFIC PLAN, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, AND MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE (Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04) APPLICANT Mr. Dick Hale 513 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite A Monrovia, CA 91016 LEAD AGENCY City of Arcadia Development Services Department — Planning Services Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5423 March 2013 INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No ADR 13 -04. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006 3. Contact Persons and Phone Number: Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner — (626) 574 -5422 4. Project Location: 289 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Dick Hale 513 S. Myrtle Ave., Suite A Monrovia, CA 91016 6. General Plan Designation: Current — Santa Anita Commercial (0.3 FAR); Proposed - Commercial (0.5 FAR) 7. Zoning: Current — R -1 (Second One Family); Proposed - C -O & H6 (Commercial Office with a 60 -foot height overlay) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s) if necessary). Specific Plan No. SUP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04. • A Specific Plan for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building development, a 366 space surface parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting the proposed building with the Methodist Hospital property at 300 W. Huntington Drive. • A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 185,177 square -feet from two existing parcels totaling 11,975,223 square -feet. • A General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan Designation from Santa Anita Park Commercial (0.3 FAR) to Commercial (0.5 FAR). • A Zone Change to revise the zoning from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1). • Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed building and pedestrian bridge. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The area of the proposed development is currently part of a large surface parking lot on the Santa Anita Park racetrack property zoned S -1 — Special Uses. This parking lot will abut the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 new development along the north and west property lines. An existing medical office building development at 301 W. Huntington Drive abuts the subject site to the south (zoned C -O — Commercial Office). A hospital at 300 W. Huntington Drive (Methodist Hospital) is located across a major arterial road (Huntington Drive) to the east of the subject site (zoned S -2 — Public Purpose). 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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. n n n n n Aesthetics Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation /Traffic n LJ n n n Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 28 n n Air Quality Geology / Soils Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: O I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. © 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. O I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. O 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. = S� Signature Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner Printed Name 3/1 Date / City of Arcadia For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project - specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 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, Tess 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 Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 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 15063(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. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. Mitigation Monitoring 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. An MMRP will be prepared to implement the mitigation measures as outlined in this Initial Study. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 4 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Scenic resources such as undisturbed or unique vistas, natural or undisturbed areas, or officially recognized areas are not located on the existing City right -of -way or surrounding area. The San Gabriel Mountains to the distant north are the most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the subject site. Additionally, no designated scenic highways are located adjacent to or within the view of the subject right -of -way. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to scenic resources and views. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? There are no designated scenic highways within the City of Arcadia. The nearest designated State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest Highway approximately 15 miles away. Therefore, there will have no impacts to state scenic resources. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? During the construction period, persons traveling on area roadways (e.g. Huntington Drive) as well as persons at nearby land uses would have views of the proposed project site in various stages of site preparation and construction. At times, the disturbed soils and vegetation, equipment and stocks of materials would be clearly seen. There is no practical way of screening the entire site from view during this period. However, the City will require standard screened construction fencing at the project site (chain -link fencing with green material coverings). As such, a temporary degradation of the project sites visual character would result. However, because of the screened construction fencing and temporary nature of this effect, it is considered a temporary adverse, but a less than significant impact. Additionally, the proposed project will be compatible in terms of uses, scale, and design with the other existing medical office building on the adjacent site and Methodist Hospital Complex across Huntington Drive. Given the small size and specific location in the southwest corner of the site, it will not detract from the visual quality of the Santa Anita Park property. Based upon the project plans provided by the applicant, the proposed project will not substantially degrade the visual character of the site and surroundings. Therefore, the long term impact is considered less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project site is within a fully urbanized area. The new building and parking lot lighting will be consistent with the lighting within the surrounding area and will comply with the City's zoning regulations and restrictions. The exterior of the building will feature materials and colors common for new office developments and will not create any substantial glare. • Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 5 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: II. 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, 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia is a developed urban area and contains no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 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. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? 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 farmland to non- agricultural use. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion 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. ❑ ❑ ❑ Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ There is no farmland in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non- agricultural use. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin and is governed by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). According to the guidelines and the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), 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 plans. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Page 7 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The project will comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403, which identifies measures to reduce fugitive dust and is required to be implemented at all construction sites located within the South Coast Air Basin. Therefore, the standard conditions, which would be required to reduce fugitive dust in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, were included in the CaIEEMod analysis for the site preparation and grading phases of construction. With these standard conditions, the CaIEEMod analysis showed that the site would exceed the maximum temporary reactive organic (ROG) emissions recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAGMD). However, the proposed mitigation (AQ -1) limiting the total area to which architectural coatings could be applied on a daily basis 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 through the implementation of the following mitigation measure: AQ -1: Low -VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant should use low -VOC architectural coating for the building. At a minimum, all architectural coatings shall comply with the most recent standards in SCAQMD 1 Coatings. construction or , including should not be applied to no m re than10,500 square feet of pe day bhintter or and exterior surfaces. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 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)? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The majority of the project- related operational emissions would be due to vehicle trips to and from the site. The Estimated Operational Emissions per the Cal EE Mod analysis conducted by City staff indicates that with the proposed mitigation to reduce ROG emissions described in section Ill(b) of this Initial Study (AQ -1), the project - generated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, CO Sox, PMIo, or PM2.5. Therefore, the project's 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? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Methodist Hospital is considered a sensitive receptor and is located to the east of the subject site across a major arterial (Huntington Drive). The distance between the subject site and this hospital is approximately 50 meters. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's memorandum "Final Localized Threshold Methodology" (June 2003) adopted thresholds for various pollutant concentrations for use by local government at the discretion of the local agencies. According to this memorandum, the use of the localized significance thresholds (LST) by local government is stated to be voluntary. The proposed project would comply with the majority of the LST's recommended as voluntary thresholds for a sensitive receptor within 50 meters of the site, and with the proposed mitigation to reduce ROG emissions described in section II!(b) of this Initial Study (AQ -1) would comply with all of the required SCAQMD air quality significant thresholds. Based on the above, the project would have a less than significant impact. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The medical office uses not be expected to create or emit objectionable odors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 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 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed project will involve minor 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. BIO -1: 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 of 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 at least two weeks prior to commencement of activities (e.g. grading). If active nests of bird species protected by the 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 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? 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 10 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No 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 with the City's 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 significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? The proposed development is located on the Santa Anita Park racetrack property. The lead agency considers the racetrack, grandstands, and garden /courtyard areas adjacent to the grandstands to be a historic resource. The proposed medical office development will be located within the existing parking lot of the Santa Anita Park racetrack property, but a substantial distance from all of the significant historic resources on -site. The proposed development is situated adjacent to an existing medical office development at 301 W. Huntington Drive. The proposed medical building is situated in the southeast corner of the site, where it will not obstruct views of the historic resources on the Santa Anita Park site. A proposed pedestrian bridge that will cross over Huntington Drive would not affect views or otherwise impact these existing historic resources. As such, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. 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 archaeological resources on the subject. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The subject site is not known to contain any paleontological or unique Therefore, the project will in no way destroy a unique 4 geological site resources. geo logic feature. The right -of -way is surrounded by developed properties aand located in urbanized area. 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. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Page 11 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent by Alquist-Priolo issued Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 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? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (a, i -iv) The City of Arcadia contains two fault which underlie Rthe sensm�cl Sierra subje �to Fault. The extremely thick alluvial p osits . This of differential settlement during any intense shaking hen an associated area settles to different to�er a seismic hazard results in damage to property relatively short distance, and almost all of this region is subject to this hazard, but building design standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. ed The project site is not located within t d o ln a hillsideowhtereylandslidesamay occur, ccurrh Thereforeatno earthquake hazard zone; nor is it located impacts are expected as a result of the proposed development® ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss ❑ of topsoil? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation ooated Significant Nmpact Impact P ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Ng ❑ ❑ ❑ tz Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 12 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The proposed development will require removal of the existing fill soils from the site and expose the underlying dense native soils. The upper native soils will be removed and re- compacted to create a uniform fill pad for the support of the proposed foundations and floor s labs. Construction of the proposed project would result in ground surface disruption during excavation, grading, and trenching that would create the potential for erosion. Common means of soil erosion for construction sites include stormwater, high winds, and being tracked off -site by construction vehicles. The project would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading. Because the site encompasses an area greater than one acre, the applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The applicant is also required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). If the proposed improvements will replace more than 5,000 square feet of turf (permeable surface) with a building (impermeable surface), the applicant is also required to comply with the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan ( SUSMP). A SWPPP is a fundamental requirement of stormwater permits and 1) identifies all potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges from the construction site, and 2) describes practices to be used to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges from the construction site. The SUSMP requires the installation and maintenance of post construction treatment control best management practices (BMPs). Potential for soil erosion exists during construction due to wind or sediment traveling in stormwater runoff; however dust control measures (AQMD Rule 403) — see Air Quality SC 1 through 5, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan are already required by the City to be implemented for the project site and it would adequately address this concern. Over the long -term the project would be covered with impervious surfaces, landscaped areas, and should not be subject to substantive erosion. With adherence to these codes and regulations, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant. GEO -1: 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 all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding or other suitable measures. GEO -2: When working near catch basins, cover and seal each basin prior to the start of construction. 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 collapse? 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 not result in an on- or off -site landslide. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 13 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ IZI 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 directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? No Impact a -b: 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 2050. According to the Cal EE Mod analysis conducted by the lead agency, the increase of GHG emissions with no mitigation measures associated with the project once operations begin will be approximately 3,406 metric tons CO2E per year, which exceeds SCAQMD's recommended 3,000 MT CO2E per year threshold. However, the proposed mitigation (GHG -1) requiring a $2.98 daily transit subsidy to be made available to 100% of employees who work at project site would reduce estimated GHG emissions to 2,918 metric tons CO2E. As such, impacts related to air quality as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant through the implementation of the following mitigation measure: GHG -1: A minimum daily transit subsidy of $2.98 shall be required to be made available by employers to 100% of their employees who work at the project site (289 W. Huntington Drive). This condition shall apply only to the Operations Phase of the project, and not the Construction Phase. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 14 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a -b) All new development within the City shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) on the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The proposed project must also comply with California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP) to prevent the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances, and South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) Rules X and XIV, which include regulations for toxic and hazardous air pollutant emissions. Because this project would involve new construction, excavations, and new utility lines, the following standard of conditions has been proposed to ensure there will be no potential impacts SC -6: 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 are required to notify the owner /operator of the line and must identify the locations of subsurface lines 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. In regards to the use, some of the tenants from the medical use could store, use, generate and dispose of medical hazardous materials, as well as use and store medical supplies that may be considered hazardous. Hazardous materials that may be associated with medical offices may include, but are not limited to are pharmaceuticals, sharps, specific ingredients in sterilizing solutions, laboratory chemicals, biohazards (e.g. fluid, blood), and electronic devices. There is always a threat of spills, leaks or unauthorized discharges of hazardous materials associated with these uses. The California Department of Public Health Environmental Management Branch regulates the collection, storage, transportation and disposal of sharps and medical wastes (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). Generators of medical wastes must have a Medical Waste Management Plan pursuant to the Medical Waste Management Act (MWMA) addressing the processing, storage, treatment and transport of medical waste generated and it must also include emergency procedures. Assuming that the individual tenants comply with the legal requirements for use, storage, transport and disposal of regulated substances, impacts associated with such substances during the routine operation of the project as well as during an accident is anticipated to be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the proposed development. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ The subject site is vacant. Based upon a review of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) database covering Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Action sites, the project site was not on any of the referenced lists. Additionally, the project site nor any properties within one - quarter mile of the project site are identified on the California State Water Resources Control Board's Geotracker list of leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) sites (2012). The project site is not identified as being a hazardous material site. Therefore, there would be no impact. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 15 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 airport related safety hazards for people working at the subject site. Therefore, there would be no impacts. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 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 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 fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? California's Public Resource Code and Government Code 51175 -89 directed the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) to map areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. CAL Fire created a mapping system that identifies Fire Hazard Zones, and has created a map showing areas that are considered to be Very High Fire Hazards Zones in Arcadia. The map has been officially adopted by the City, and the City has targeted these areas to implement stringent wild land fire mitigation strategies. The subject site does not fall within any fire hazard zones, and is not within close proximity to any wild lands and will not have the above impact. Therefore, wildfire hazard impacts would be less than significant. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 16 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact In 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) was amended to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants into "Waters of the U.S." from any point source. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency establish regulations for permitting under the NPDES permit program, that at the local level, cities must ensure provision of vegetated swales, buffers, and infiltration areas in new development projects. For Arcadia, the NPDES permit is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. The NPDES program coordinates the actions of all incorporated cities within this region (except Long Beach) and Los Angeles County to regulate and control storm water and urban runoff into Los Angeles County waterways and the ocean. In support of the NPDES permit and the obligation to keep waterways clean by reducing or eliminating contaminants from storm water and dry weather runoff, the City is required to implement the most effective combination of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water /urban runoff pollution control. The City has a storm water education program, an aggressive inspection team that issues notices of violation for water quality violations, and requires the use of best management practices in residential, commercial, and development- related activities to reduce runoff. The project is subject to NPDES requirements to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and waste discharge requirements, and therefore the impacts will be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? The existing site is deve loped with a surface parking lot. There will not be any substantial changes in grading of the site and the existing drainage pattern would not be significantly altered. A SUSMP will be prepared as part of this project, and the new development will be required to meet or exceed pre - project conditions for stormwater discharge, and the proposed project would be required to retain any additional runoff onsite and discharge it to the storm drain system at rates that do not exceed pre - project conditions. Therefore, with regard to the storm drain capacity, the project will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation. Mitigation measure HYD -1 would ensure adequate capacity. HYD -1: 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 roadway. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 17 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The discussion provided in c) above adequately discusses surface water pollution impacts from the project. The project would result in less than significant 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 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 less than significant level assuming implementation of these plans. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. f) Otherwise substantially degrrde water quality? The additional volumes of stormwater runoff created by the project would be negligible and would not significantly impact water quality. El g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? The project would not include the development of housing. The subject site does not lie within a 100 - year flood hazard zone as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact regarding the placement of housing within a designated flood hazard area. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The subject site does not lie within a 100 -year flood hazard zone. Project implementation would have no impact on the course of flood flows within such a zone. No significant flood hazard impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The project site lies within the flood hazard zone for Santa Anita Dam. The Santa Anita Dam is located along the Santa Anita Wash approximately three miles north of the subject site. The concrete dam was completed in 1927 and is owned and operated by the Los Angeles County Development of Public Works Flood Control District (LACDPW). In 2009, LACDPW started a sediment removal project at the Santa Anita Reservoir to increase reservoir capacity and ensure compliance with California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety Dams' seismic stability requirements for the dam. Over one -half million tons of sediment is being transferred to the Santa Anita Sediment Placement Site in Arcadia. Seismic safety retrofits to the dam include modifications to the dam's inlet/outlet works and the construction of a new dam riser. The proposed project would involve no housing as a part of this project, and the entire community is in Zone D, which the City is not required to implement any flood plain management regulations as a condition per the National Flood Insurance Program from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 18 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: j) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact The City of Arcadia is not located near any large inland bodies of water or the Pacific Ocean and the site is not within a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow hazard area. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? The proposed medical office building is consistent and /or compatible with the existing neighboring land uses (i.e., Horse Racetrack, medical offices, hospital). The project will match the existing development pattern along Huntington Drive in terms of land use, scale, massing, and design of the structures in the area. A sidewalk will be installed in front of the proposed site to provide a missing link in the City's existing sidewalk network along Huntington Drive, thereby improving pedestrian access and walkability in and around the project site. The adjacent medical office complex at 301 W. Huntington Drive has a pedestrian bridge that crosses above Huntington Drive connecting to the Methodist Hospital property. The proposed pedestrian bridge at this site would be consistent with the size, design, and function of this existing bridge. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. As such, the project would result in no impact. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposal includes a Specific Plan for the 4.25 acre site. In 1996, the City adopted General Plan language that included designating 85 acres of the southerly Santa Anita Park Racetrack parking lot as "Commercial" and describing the type of project envisioned for this area. In the 2010 update of the General Plan, this language was left intact. Specifically, the General Plan states that "new development within the portion of the Racetrack designated Commercial is to be implemented through a Specific Plan ". Even though a single medical office building is not the target for such a process, it is important that the proposed project is processed as a Specific Plan in accordance with Sections 9296 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code. These sections of the Municipal Code establish the authority for a legislative body to adopt a Specific Plan when it is in the public interest to do so. The proposed General Plan Amendment will revise the General Plan Designation from Santa Anita Park Commercial (0.3 FAR) to Commercial (0.5 FAR). The change would result in a slightly increased Floor Area Ratio. The entire 85 acres of the southerly racetrack property includes a FAR Overlay of 0.3, which was put in place in 1996 as a way to ensure that development of all 85 acres did not overwhelm the grandstand and other surrounding uses. However, this is the lowest FAR found anywhere in the City, with the vast majority of the City having a 0.5 FAR or higher, including the adjacent 301 W. Huntington Drive property. Because this Specific Plan will only apply to 4.25 acres of the larger Santa Anita Park site, revising the General Plan Designation and FAR of this site only will not conflict with the visions and goals stated in the City's General Plan. The proposed Zone Change will revise the zoning of the site from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan - Santa Anita 1). Revising the zoning of the site ensures the Specific Plan, General Plan Designation, and Zoning Designation of this property remain internally consistent and do not conflict. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the City's subdivision.requirements. The proposed development is consistent with these standards and regulations. The proposed development, Tentative Parcel Map, Specific Plan, and /or changes proposed to the underlying General Plan Designation and Zoning Designation of the site will not conflict with these standards or any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 19 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ El There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan on the subject site. Therefore, the project could not conflict with such plans. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 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 Toss 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 designated in the General Plan as a mineral resource recovery site. Therefore, the proposal would not have the above impact. XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction for this project will be required to comply with the Noise Element of the City of Arcadia's General Plan as well as noise regulations for construction activities, which limit the maximum noise level and hours of construction activity. For the medical office uses that will occupy the site, the City's General Plan and Municipal Code limit the levels of stationary source noise to no greater than 65 dba between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., and 60 dba between 10 pm. and 7:00 a.m. The medical office tenants are not anticipated to create noise in excess of these standards. Therefore, the impacts will be less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project construction would generally involve the temporary movement of trucks, materials and equipment at the site and use heavy equipment. The anticipated construction activities would result in some level of vibration; however, it is not anticipated to be substantially greater in magnitude than that associated with the passing of other heavy vehicles such as garbage trucks. The proposed project does not involve rock blasting or pile driving. Therefore, the project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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. Ezi ❑ ❑ ❑ Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ The noise levels resulting from the proposed medical offices can be expected to be similar to these surrounding uses. No special events or other periodic activities would occur at the site that might create substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. The project construction will comply with the requirements of the City's Municipal Code, which limits the maximum noise level and hours of construction activity. As such, temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport and 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 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 airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people 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. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an 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 roads 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, 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. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 21 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Less Than Significant Impact a -e: The proposed development does not include residential uses, which typically generate a demand for public services. The proposal is located in an urban area and will not necessitate any substantial upgrades to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities. Further, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant impact or an increase in demand for governmental services. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 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 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. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 22 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan (LLG) to forecast peak hour vehicle trip generation, anticipate distribution of project vehicle trips, and analyzed existing intersection /corridor operations. The following intersections were studied: 1. Baldwin Avenue /Huntington Drive 2. Gate 3 -Holly Avenue /Huntington Drive 3. Colorado Place /Huntington Drive 4. Santa Clara Street/Huntington Drive 5. Santa Anita Avenue /Huntington Drive 6. Centennial Way/West Huntington Drive 7. Centennial Way /East Huntington Drive Based on the analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 172 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 257 trips during the PM peak hour, and 2,602 total trips on a typical weekday. It was concluded that the proposed project will not create significant traffic impacts at any of the study intersections, and the levels -of- service (LOS) will remain the same. The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing effectiveness for the performance of the transportation system, taking into account all modes of transportation. As such, the project will have less than significant impacts. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion 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 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact According to the 2010 Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County, there are no CMP intersection monitoring locations within the City of Arcadia. The nearest CMP intersection monitoring location is the Rosemead Boulevard /Huntington Drive intersection, located approximately two miles west of the project site in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The CMP Traffic Impact Assessment guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the weekday AM or PM peak hours. According to the analysis from the Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, the proposed project will not add 50 or more trips to the AM (8:00 a.m.) or PM (4:00 p.m.) peak hours at any CMP monitoring intersections, and no more than 150 trips to the freeway (in either direction). Therefore, no further review of potential impacts to intersection monitoring locations that are part of the CMP highway system is required, and there are no impacts. Given the low number of generated trips per bus (i.e. Metro and Foothill Transit), no impacts on existing or future transit services in the project area are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. 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 safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ There are no airports or airstrips in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The nearest airport is El Monte Airport, which is located approximately three miles south of the project site. The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns or safety risky related to the airports. The project would have no impacts and no mitigation measures would be necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? The project does not contain any incompatible uses that would result in a substantial hazard. The medical office building is designed to comply with the City's standards for driveways, walkways, sidewalks, and all other related requirements. The building is setback approximately 27 -feet from the front property line and will not disrupt driver visibility or otherwise create substantial hazards due to design features. The pedestrian bridge will have a minimum clearance of 15 -feet above Huntington Drive and 14 -feet above the adjacent sidewalks. The stairway tower providing access to the pedestrian bridge at the Methodist Hospital site is proposed at 12' -7" from the street curb, which encroaches into the driveway visibility area for one of the Methodist Hospital driveways and therefore could create a substantial hazard to pedestrians and /or drivers. However, as a Mitigation measure (TT -1), the location of the access stairway will be required to be revised outside of the driveway visibility area to address this concern. A support column for the pedestrian bridge is proposed with a 0' -0" from the sidewalk along the east side of Huntington Drive, which could create a potential hazard to pedestrians. However, as a Mitigation measure (TT -2), the location of the support column will be required to be revised to have a minimum setback of 18- inches from the sidewalk to address this concern. With the mitigation measures below, the proposal will not result in any substantial hazards. TT-1: The location of the pedestrian bridge access stairway at the Methodist Hospital site shall be revised to be outside all driveway visibility areas. TT -2: The location of the pedestrian bridge support column at the west -side of Huntington Drive shall be revised to be setback a minimum of 18- inches from the adjacent sidewalk. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed development will comply with all of the City's requirements for emergency access. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 24 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ The proposed project would be consistent with policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the applicant has proposed to install new bike racks on site in accordance with the City's bike parking requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the policies, plans, or programs and no mitigation measures would be necessary. XVII. 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? The proposed project will be tied -in to the existing sewer main on Huntington Drive, which is considered to be deficient according to the City's Public Works Department. However, a Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to upgrade the existing sewer pipe from 10" to 12" will be scheduled in 2014 -15 to handle the current deficiency. Based on the Los Angeles County Average Daily Sewage Design Standard, estimated tributary flow to the sewer system from the new project will be substantially more than the previous loading from the property. Based on the load calculations provided by the Applicant, Arcadia's Public Works Department determined that in all cases, the flow would be considered greater than the design capacity of the pipe. To address this deficiency, the sewer main will be upgraded in 2015 -16, as part of a CIP project. However, if this project begins construction prior to the improvements scheduled for FY 2014 -15 and 2015 -16, then an area study will be required to determine what effect this project would have on the existing sewer and how to address any deficiencies. With the proposed mitigation measure, the project would result in a less than significant impact. The existing sewer main on Huntington Drive, between Colorado Place and the West branch of the Arcadia Wash has been identified in the City's Sewer Master Plan as being deficient for wet weather flows. A project to address the current situation is under consideration in the City's Capital Improvement Program to design the necessary improvements in Fiscal Year 2014 -2015 and to construct the improvements in FY 2015 -2016. 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 shall be required to construct the necessary improvements if the area study concludes the project will result in the sewer capacity being exceeded. USS -1: 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 shall be required to construct the necessary improvements if the area study concludes the project will result in the sewer capacity being exceeded. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 25 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Based on the scope of the project, the City's Public Works Department has determined the existing storm water drainage facilities are adequate to support the proposed project. A SUSMP will be required as part of this project. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to 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), and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). 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 San Gabriel and Raymond Groundwater Basins. The City obtains water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) from the State Water Project and the Colorado River. MWD 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 less than significant. 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 projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? 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 project's solid waste disposal needs? The City of Arcadia does not contract with a particular landfill. However, the trash generated from a project is often taken to the Puente Hills 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 less 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. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 26 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, 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? Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ Approval of the proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Designation, Zoning Designation, Tentative Parcel Map, medical office development, and pedestrian bridge do not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. It will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species since it is located in a fully- developed area. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects). Approval of the proposed Specific Plan, General Plan Designation, Zoning Designation, Tentative Parcel Map, medical office development, and pedestrian bridge 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 effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed in the re levant sections of this Initial Study, the project would not result in any significant permanent impacts. Additionally, with the mitigation measures described in the relevant sections of this Initial Study, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. No significant unmitigated adverse impacts have been identified for the project. Source References 1. City of Arcadia General Plan, adopted November 2010 2. City of Arcadia Land Use and Zoning Map, adopted December 7, 2010 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Rules and Regulations, 2005. 4. Memorandum from Arcadia Public Works Department — Sewer Capacity, dated March 15, 2013 5. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan, 2011 6. Federal Emergency Management Agency (Community Number #065014), dated September 7, 1984 7. City of Arcadia, Noise Regulations, Chapter 6, Article IV, of City of Arcadia Municipal Code 8. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, February 20, 2013 Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 27 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 9. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005. California Environmental Quality Act Air Handbook 10. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Rules and Regulations, 2005. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 28 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pro ra Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, Gener al Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No ADR 13 -04 at 289 W. Huntington Drive This Standard Conditions, Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Review to develop a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical RP) for a new surface parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting d Architectural building r ae with the Methodist Hospital property ge at over Huntington W. cal ocon building, 366-space p proposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — Public onnecting the proposed Huntington Drive has been , prepared Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14,I�C Chapter Resources Code, S 5074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. A master copy of the Initial Stu Study and MMRP are available at Planning Services office and the City's Library. I Study and This program also includes Standard Conditions (SC). They are existing regulations imposed by the City, County, State, federal agencies or special districts and compliance regulations is largely the responsibility of the project applicant/developer. 9 g ations that are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. Rather, they mpliance with not considered as a matter mitigation course by the City and er other regulatory The SCs are y are expected to be agencies. Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified MMRP has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary of a MMRP to the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when in the be implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been ary inform the mitigation will information to identify The Applicant is implemented. 9' approval for • A Specific Plan for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building development, a 366 space surface parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting th e proposed building with the Methodist Hospital property at 300 W. Huntington Drive. g rive. • A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 185,177 square -feet from two existing parcels totaling 975, 223 square -feet. i ng • A General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan Designation from Santa Anita Park Commercial (0.3 FAR) to Commercial (0.5 FAR). • A Zone Change to revise the zoning from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1). • Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed building and pedestrian bridge. This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on the following pages that correspond to the final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. The matrix lists each mitigation measure by environmental topic and indicates the nitOand the responsible monitoring entity. Mitigation measures may be II I IG ve Checked only once, or th m�tm a equire moe't sr' complete'Cthe p �"� maJ Once a g mment on the Y S an d rading s ending cell and co }} g rre the N t`� n jtlal the co p" t a plicant "s used m C0111 r ifuOn nd In t . "project p a. licant. Y n a t e m p �_ ��� eft p CD CD C = 0 r o 0 7 O d R7 O c = = a W d En a1 Q C � (s C Rf a) " f0 N n 13 0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No ADR 13 -04 at 289 W. Huntington Drive This Standard Conditions, Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for a new Specific Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Architectural Design Review to develop a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building, 366 -space surface parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting the proposed building with the Methodist Hospital property at 300 W. Huntington Drive has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA — Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15074 and 15097) and the City of Arcadia CEQA Guidelines. A master copy of the Initial Study and MMRP are available at Planning Services office and the City's Library. 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 Specific Plan for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office building development, a 366 space surface parking lot, and a pedestrian bridge over Huntington Drive connecting the proposed building with the Methodist Hospital property at 300 W. Huntington Drive. • A Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide 185,177 square -feet from two existing parcels totaling 11, 975, 223 square -feet. • A General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan Designation from Santa Anita Park Commercial (0.3 FAR) to Commercial (0.5 FAR). • A Zone Change to revise the zoning from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1). • Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed building and pedestrian bridge. This MMRP includes mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix on the following pages that correspond to the final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 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 construction and grading. Once a mitigation measure is complete, the responsible 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 MMRP, it shall be deemed to include each and all successors in interest of the project applicant. Standard Conditions, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Enforcement Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure City of Arcadia — Planning and Building Services. City Building Inspector shall periodically conduct physical monitoring at the project site during construction period and document results in project file. E co a) (d N a U o) .0 .V 'a O a1 C_ (1) co -a C_.•E >. a) •_ aj '� C oO Q. U) C 4= 7a a) V U a) V-a U • a) I� �'ao °o (0 (0 c CO O. a O. cu aj a) C) C a) UC . 'C U C O C .V m a 0 +,...4 _T . = C C a a)OOUJ UWU) CJ QE o,_ Responsible for Mitigation The Property Owner, Project Manager, and On -site Superintendents. U a) O a m a) c OO c a)ct,c n. Oa)c a co C N a) >Z � 2 c Monitoring and Action Notes The Project Manager shall be aware of the SCAMD Rule and issue instructions to the contractors that the architectural coating should not be applied to more than 10,500 square feet of construction per day, for both interior and exterior surfaces. a) w o a) vi N la -o O = a) 0 U c L a) U (d 4) X O o +-. co c L N O C U cu a) 0 O N _ • V O Q . c.c j a O E' N a. U O 0) C ' c ° • 3 ° - e t d C C U ) ) c o ,_ O N a) 7 O a -O 0 .O `c Q- Q t N C •= as V C U d 2 0 C L_ > C 2 O d O + O p rn O C al O_ t0 c co C c U al m O= o) 'a c CU a) O) CD c C c N c a, m ca u) C -a = u) c TO N OU U to I— o v) < uu) cu N rn cn Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions 1. Air Quality AQ -1: Low -VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant should 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. 2. Standard Conditions SC -1: Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors shall minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amount of dust. SC -2: 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, 12.0 CONCLUSIONS This traffic impact study has been prepared to identify and evaluate the potential impacts of traffic generated by the proposed Hale Medical Center project. The proposed project consists of the development of a new four -story medical office building (MOB) with approximately 72,000 gross square feet of building floor area. Construction of the proposed project is planned to be built and occupied by year 2014. In order to evaluate the potential impacts due to the proposed project, seven intersections were identified for evaluation in consultation with the City of Arcadia to determine changes in traffic operations following occupancy and utilization of the project. The proposed project is expected to generate 172 additional vehicle trips (136 inbound trips and 36 outbound trips) during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 257 additional vehicle trips (72 inbound trips and 185 outbound trips). Over a 24 -hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 2,602 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (approximately 1,301 inbound trips and 1,301 outbound trips). It is concluded that the proposed project is not expected to result in significant traffic impacts at any of the study intersections for existing with project and future with project conditions. 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. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1 -13- 4008 -1 Hale Medical Center Project - 45 - Q�pFESSION' 4p��EDC.p. cn NO. TR1944 m m d °XII u6 /3o/i% * s�J TRAFF'° OF CA.* Prepare. By: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS HALE MEDICAL CENTER PROJECT City of Arcadia, California March 11, 2013 Prepared for: The Hale Corporation 513 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite A Monrovia, Califomia 91016 LLG Ref. 1-13-4008-1 Under the Supervision of: &JAI 217. Ifred ng, P. 'TP Clare M. Look- Jaeger, P.E. Senior sporta •n En• eer Principal LINSCOTT LAW 8, GREENSPAN engineers Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 600 S. Lake Avenue Suite 500 Pasadena, CA91106 626.7962322 T 626.792.0941 F www.11gengineers.com Enforcement Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure i Responsible for Mitigation Monitoring and Action Notes area study concludes the project will result in fair -share contribution of this the sewer capacity being exceeded. project toward the sewer improvement project. The property owner or developer shall be required to construct the necessary improvements and /or pay for its fair -share contribution to the city prior to occupancy of any part of the project. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions c c cotm d = O L d 0 W > V + O >+ 0 c =ca w w CD Q c a) E 0. O m > 0(D -t co co Lb- U 0 Q O r.- a) .0 t N U Cr) a) E a 0 a) > �. N c 0 (1) -t co co 'a a) U 0 Q � a) O U U U) The Property Owner The Property Owner The Property Owner 0 0 C O C Z 0 O 2 0) c O O a) a) a� c c N 0 - O O — E U E m N N O O Q U 0 8. Transportation!Traffic = N -c - N (Udob Wo0EtO -0 C a) 7 CO C O) 0 ." a) c ) Opp E °' a) c 0 _c N - N QVa)3 a) a L O N 0 U I— E a_ V) .6 v1 0 > O 0.'L 0 E c E o0'Em ac E3 T) "2 a) c 7 U +N �_ co c 17. N O • ,O N N a)- OD a. .0 ocn o a) Y3 0 0) ai o c r> O m 0 co N m C .0 0 a) co C O °c) c .- a) O �– O a) — a) � 12 -°o ) .oEr,0Uca L°)76 a) C0c I—o O` 8 fl. > N O L N o_ N 0) V 7 a 0_-0 O •C U_ ,� t 7 c a) U E 0 7 0 0 -0 L -0 'a.0 0— N V 'N 0_ N a) "0 0" .5 =. N N030(n` =N 0 u 6- - 3 m m gY c o� v c 0 C L- a) C— N O O N 0 U N a) O E a) 0 >00 —c u) >aE0a) -'-' c 0 U 0) O E.V a) m >.N L p w N CO a) OL a) 7 7 a) a) 3 .0 I— U N 0.UYd a cna00 U) 4-. 9. Utilities and Service Systems E -c .33 y aa) -0 L N , , a) N 7 U) O 'Q a) (1) +- O c a) a) ; 4- Q. c6 • '7 to ct) 'Q p) " C «. w p C E Ea;��'m30aci -�'a) 0-0 o'X� N uoi3O a) U.0 aa)) C , a_C c O 03 C 7 a_•- s�nOOE N " -E -° E � N To. o . O 'd N N U) 0) 0 N - O i~ 7 c O o_ a) voica >cn 0 c N c 0- 0 0 fU "' O y 10 U a) shoo • 0aE!.!L2 sr•• c Noma)�a) _c -o co -0 •c m 3- 0 ,.° O 0E >m� U OCI a) >,o m 2 N} m LA a 'O f>C >' 0. C CO •O CO O • U D oo cu (0 cua_n.08 6 Enforcement Agency /Monitoring Tenants shall submit a list of transit subsidy recipients to the property owner /management on a monthly basis. The property owner /property manager shall compile a monthly master list of recipients for the medical building and submit this master list to City Staff on a monthly basis. m 7 / -0 ° k 00 • @ —@ /: �c 2� -- �g6 �� § @2 \�� • C0k0f _ � / t E o c s m c Q eE0 = /� \Ea c £ « E q 0 2 t O�� to o ¥as c �fc =° �/ fb2aD2 Qca w5 \2%& 6c ce +§ do '2 CO CO 5 2.' «§ @ m %c& OOƒ The Property Owner and Project Manager The Property Owner Monitoring and Action Notes - _c E \2� %E § c>7i-a 2 c — 0 0 0. 'o§WE5 @n%E cLoo &e3o =Eco§k 2 2 _§ ©% / $ % c m5CD w20¥J a) /2�E@ ®g �&e ° »e.0 f_m ®t =c= @ m o o o m o /30 «2%53 o __c 3 b E 0 ¢ /' co 00. / th C 7 0 k § ■ 0 = CO CO 0 § g C ._ . c k 2� o o 2 N i 13 2 CO 2 6 SC -6: 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 are required to notify the owner /operator of the line and must identify the locations of subsurface lines 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. 7. Hydrology and Water Quality HYD -1: 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 Enforcement Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for ii Agency/Monitoring n Notes Mitigation . Agency /Reporting Procedure 4.. Geology and Soils Shall prepare and implement The Property Owner, Project City of Arcadia — Engineering construction BMPs and erosion Manager, and On -Site Services and Public Works GEO -1: The construction crew shall be required to use control plan. Superintendents. Department. Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Following ground- disturbing standards to control and reduce erosion. activities for all applicable These measures could include, but are not projects. for It shall be considered limited to, protection all finished graded slopes complete upon doe considered of from erosion using such techniques as compliance with erosion - control erosion control matting and hydroseeding or best management practices and other suitable measures. completion of re- vegetation. GEO -2: When working near catch basins, cover and The catch basin shall be sealed The Property Owner, Project City of Arcadia — Building seal each basin prior to the start of with plastic prior to each phase Manager, and On -site Services and Public Works construction. (3 phases in this project). The Superintendents. Department. developer /property owner shall The City Building and Public provide a construction schedule Works Inspectors shall to do the City prior to issuance of periodically monitor the catch a building permit or grading permit. basins during construction period and document results in the project file. 5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG -1: A minimum daily transit subsidy of $2.98 shall The Property Owner shall The Property Owner City vi Ar adiart Devtelopment be required to be made available by employers include this transit subsidy to 100% of their employees who work at the requirement in the lease City Staff shall require a copy of project site (289 W. Huntington Drive). This agreements for all tenants and the signed lease agreement copy condition shall apply only to the Operations occupants of the medical office thelu signed the lease ey Phase of the project, and not the Construction building. stipulation prior to approval of a Phase. business license application. 0 C C d .O t ` �ca� d O d Q) 1M re .. 8 �O ,, v O C =o. W W a a o a) • y 73 C a) a) a)'E o O "r N - a) c- -0 Q) 'C U u) N U N 0 U CO C_ • E�o(1) w ` c co a) o v, _c N c U C C A U t a N (A Q) C N Q) N _— C o ci' • 0) a) O O O L C.) U-aoa)a Superintendents. ,N (0 'N c c E.D. p (II N- •o O .CO., L U a) N O U C L U N a) (o �_ LO a L a C a) O L a c co a u) c0 a 5 (n3 c� cocc 'NOpcoa wai 0 a) c cost ao p-t ��.c o = E c= c0 t a) c a) ° i- co c' s 8 o •a 0•° o oer 2 > a) = oc -- c O c'' a) = " 0 us -0 0 w U _ao a) o ca).., p -t a) (a c p c 0' %) s- a) o C a a O m' p V a Q) a) ooa Na00 al o>o,ca) a) .2)- U f0 3 L w N ca 46 i7, (`o.c a. 3s Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions U) 'a cn Q) >, a O N c N .c C p .r s 73 c O a...` Z' C co N m c�O ° a : co•5.I- at p. - gy >, U n Q O E O t . ° ) L 6.- 0_ 0 i� °c'o m a) c o E a a c(� co p .N� - 0 a � co ° ca? _a co .. c al _ N O co •J (0 06 a) O C C .- al co --0 (0 L a) a O O a f0 76— Q) ma! a C 2 L— (V ca U) 41) fn •_., O N o • .N a t O L = t "C9 • g. c C N co c >' a) ° o EL") L C .O Q) `` 3 O O Cam. a) c p :8 h-- a... -.c N@ a U O L- L (p 4- co 4- 0 ` C> O O cv'p ` co (o ~ .L•. C o U L N O (La C a) Q) c p O N Q) Q) ` a 0 .0 Q O 'a N, (a QS N E N `O N CD O o L Q) (0 can 0 a) >, N C 0 U c2.- c O• V O C c0 ( (q N C C _U N� E N > N N E a C O O - Q t a U C N_ E .t , U 0) c O w Q) L f0 N O- N N E (o m L 'a c) a) �a o— N ca °c v - _a- 3- . s3c°V2 pa caa)..:ccw- L a) N a O a) > c O .L.. E t L 4c7-) t-t 3 °ate 3 a1 v) c as N L -o O co c c0 ca c as c O c O Q) Q) U O U a Q) O Q) 7 C - cQ w C !A a CU C O c O O O o U N f0 O a) Q) (o c a) '3 0) caa)�'U) 0 o- C a c Q) C U > 0 L a.> ' t uaN 7 C O ) ) a s o' U N C a) C -a 'j O N O O c � (1) a) O (II cn (O Q t1:1 O L O .n E L C Q) C .) U) Q L O cn U oNi- E- c.E >7 c c d +O_.' O 1- E O a) d p _+ O cc ca W y G) >�Q cp Q U a) O d a) a) cn c c 00 >'c c a)co 0. o 0) 0- ca a) c ca 1- 2 0 _c N CO 2 C N con c o m U 0) 2 C '0 c U `) .0 0) a) .c L 4- .0 L 0 C O a) V (1) ( d > (O O N c N o c 0 (1) c +_> .c 1(0 c N N O U aO Y -C, m 2 a ?• a) 0' �E0`6 N N ON asx C a) t) O +_. c CO .( a) n O Q p U` Q — .0 E+• p N a A E c L O 0 fn 2 2> 0)•> N O C Q d a) .0 N 0 m a N —(0c '+ a) m U U ++ .N U O C (0 CD w ai— N o o N N C N OL > c 0 0 0 0 ?.5 C���mac >o(d V o w N o. j O co co O O .--Z11 ( a). C C 0 n j To TA N N p p (a N a) U= o co E ° (n N 0 19, L cn .p cn OC p N w _ W c C Q 11C U) C j p O 7.5..(13 0 V .- E n (n ) M 0 C 0)a) 0 U) O c .0 c -0 O 2 N L O (0 N 0) C L a) co c d O O ` _ 0 N fl _ C4 c U 0 0 > C f0 N C 0)0. >v0 0 (d (n U En „, a)3� C (13 0.0 cnN Q7 N 0) .E E • C - 00'00(2 (`�cu`a L 0 co O c t • N 0 Z U cats, Q- 0).0 (1) 0 3. Biological Resources '0 O � O 0)'C C {l a) a) N C U N .c -o 0 .0 as N 0 L N N _c 0 3 0) 0 N 0 (1) c0 N 0 N Q Q 0 1;.' :A. I,;I.MiN; ;Rl +4R1! Ila,r�,I�l ,t 111a_Y kI' R 1�11'�I Ir Mq lk.l;'1t Il ARSION ASSOL,1AT'ES ADVISORS IN PUBL1C /PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg City of Arcadia From: Kevin Engstrom cc: Mr. Jerry Schwartz Date: March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) evaluated the medical office market conditions in the City of Arcadia (City). As KMA understands the situation, a number of new medical office projects have been proposed in the City. Given the scope of these proposals, the City would like to understand the potential demand for this type of space. Therefore, the KMA analysis reviews the City's office market conditions and estimates the potential demand for medical office space. SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 shows a summary of the salient socio- economic characteristics for one -, three -, and five -mile market areas in the City and the Los Angeles County.' The socio- economic characteristics are summarized below: Moderate population densities. Relatively small household sizes in the City. High per capita and household income levels in the City. 1 The market areas extend from 300 Huntington Dr. in Arcadia. 500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, SUITL 1480 io LOS ANGE LES. CALIFORNIA 90071 > PHONE: 213 622 8(795 FAX 213 622 5204 WWW. KEYS FRMARSTON.COM 1303017.ARC. KEE: emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 2 • Over 15% of the City households earn over $100,000. • The age distribution in the City is much older than the County as nearly one -third of the residents are over 55 compared to one -fifth countywide. • City residents are very educated, with nearly 50% having graduated from college, compared to Tess than 30% countywide. • The City has a concentration of Asian residents, which account for over 60% of the citywide population. • Growth projections for the City and County are moderate, with Claritas projecting a 6.7% increase in the City and 3.6% increase for the County through 2017. EMPLOYMENT AND BUSINESSES KMA reviewed the employment and business patterns in the City and market area and found the following: 1. Table 2 shows the SCAG employment projections from 2003 to 2035. During this period employment is projected to increase over 18% in Arcadia, which is higher than both the region and County. 2. Table 3 and 4 show the employment and business patterns for the market area and County. a. There is a concentration of retail employment in the three -mile market area. b. There is a slight concentration of both retail businesses and employment in the three -mile market area when compared to the County. 3. Table 5 and 6 show the employment and business patterns for the healthcare industry in the market area and County. a. Within the immediate one -mile market area there is a concentration of these businesses due to the Methodist Hospital of Southern California (Hospital). 1303017.ARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 3 b. Within the three -mile market area there are over 1,000 health related businesses and nearly 6,400 employees. Nearly one- third of these employees are in the one -mile market area. c. The average sales per establishment are lower in the market area compared to the County average. OFFICE OVERVIEW The office market is summarized below: 1. Table 7 shows the office market patterns for the Los Angeles Basin over the past five quarters (4th Quarter 2011 to 4th Quarter 2012). During this period, vacancy rates decreased from 18.6% to 17.9% and Class A rents have remained static at $2.27 per square foot. 2. Table 8 shows the office market conditions for Los Angeles County based on data supplied by Colliers International. Overall, the vacancy rate in the County is 18.1%. The San Gabriel Valley has the lowest vacancy rate of all the County sub - regions at 14.9 %; however, there was negative absorption during the past quarter. In addition, rents in the San Gabriel Valley are $1.89 per square foot, which is much lower than the County average of $2.50. 3. Table 9 shows the office market conditions for Los Angeles County based on data supplied by Cushman & Wakefield. Overall, the vacancy rate in the County is 18.4 %. The San Gabriel Valley has a 17.4% vacancy rate and a negative absorption over the past quarter. The average asking rent for the San Gabriel Valley is $1.99 per square foot compared to the County average of $2.51. In addition, the average Class A rent in the Valley is lower than the County average ($2.34 compared to $2.80). 4. Table 10 shows a summary of office listings in the City of Arcadia. The monthly rents range from $1.00 to $2.90 per square foot. The weighted average is $2.00 per square foot. These rents are consistent with the regional average. 5. Table 11 shows a summary of current medical office listings within five miles of the Hospital. The monthly rents range from $.80 to $2.95 per square foot. The weighted average is $1.90 per square foot. The average rent is slightly lower than the regional average. However, the rents for medical office space in Arcadia are relatively high, ranging from $1.60 to $2.90 per square foot, with a 1303017.ARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 4 weighted average of $2.20 per square foot.2 When compared to the market area, rents at this level would indicate the desirability of this type of space in the City, particularly the 301 Huntington and the 612 Duarte Buildings. 6. Based on the Los Angeles County Assessor's data, Table 12 shows the amount of medical /office building development around a number of large hospitals in the San Gabriel Valley. In particular, the analysis identifies the amount of medical /office building space per bed, which provides context for measuring the scale of the hospital development relative to the office inventory in the market area. The data indicates that the scope of medical /office space in the market areas can range considerably. For instance, there is 740 square feet of office space per bed near the Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center, compared to 2,850 square feet of office space near Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. For Methodist Hospital, there is 1,080 square feet per bed in the market; however, due to the scarcity of development within one -half mile of the project due to the golf course and race track, KMA included the medical /office buildings within the one -mile market area. Overall, the office development per bed near Methodist falls at the lower end of the range for the larger hospitals in the San Gabriel Valley. 7. Table 13 shows potential office demand within the three -mile market area over the next 15 years based on employment growth. During this period, the potential demand total is approximately 900,000 square feet. It should be noted that a share of this demand will be absorbed by existing office projects in the region that have an average vacancy rate of 15% or more. 8. Table 14 shows potential medical office demand within the three -mile market area based on employment growth in the health care industry. During this period, the potential demand totals approximately 280,000 square feet, which is included in the 900,000 square feet identified above. It should be noted that a share of this demand will be absorbed by existing office projects in the region, and this is for a three -mile market area. 9. KMA also received some feedback on the office market from brokers active in the area: a. The medical office market in Arcadia is reasonably healthy, with vacancy rates below 10 %. 2 Rents at the low end of the range are for Class C office space. 1303017.ARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 5 b. Much of the office inventory in the City is older, which is true for the medical office space as well. c. Medical office rents in more desirable buildings range between $2.80 to $3.00 per square foot on a modified gross basis. Full- service rents would be approximately $.30 to $.50 per square foot higher. d. Demand exists for new medical office space. In the near -term this demand could range from 30,000 to upwards of 60,000 square feet. Development above this level would be extremely speculative. e. The City's parking requirements are perceived to limit/hinder medical office development opportunities, as they are higher than nearby communities (e.g. Monrovia). f. There is significant uncertainty in the medical industry regarding the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and other federal /state legislation. SUMMARY Overall, the market can be characterized as follows: 1. Residents of Arcadia have relatively high incomes, are well- educated and are more mature. 2. Employment and business patterns in the market area are generally consistent with the County, with slightly higher growth projections. 3. The office market in the Los Angeles Basin is improving. Within Los Angeles County, the San Gabriel Valley has relatively low vacancy rates; however, the rents are low as well. 4. The average asking rent in Arcadia is $2.00 per square foot, which is consistent with the region. 5. The average asking rent for medical office space in the larger market area is $1.90 per square foot. However, the average medical office rents in Arcadia are $2.20 per square foot, and can approach $3.00 per square foot. According to brokers active in the area, full - service gross rents for new medical office space would likely exceed $3.00 per square foot. 1303017.ARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 6 6. Compared to other large -scale hospitals in the San Gabriel Valley, there is less medical /office building space per bed for the Methodist Hospital market area. 7. Given employment growth projections, potential market support exists for over 900,000 square feet of office space over the next 15 years in the three -mile market area. Included in that demand is approximately 280,000 square feet of medical related office space. 8. Brokers active in the area indicate there is current demand for new medical office in the market area, particularly given the age /condition of the existing office space in the City. Overall, the near -term demand could support 30,000 square feet of space and perhaps up to 60,000 square feet. Additional development beyond this in the near -term would be very speculative. Overall, the Arcadia medical office market is relatively healthy with the Methodist Hospital, and a well- educated, mature, high- income population base. Rents in the market area exceed general office space averages, and the vacancy rates are relatively low. New medical office space would likely be well received in the market, particularly given the age of some existing properties in the City. Brokers active in the City indicate potential support for 30,000 square feet and perhaps up to 60,000 square feet of new development in the near -term. These estimates are generally in -line with KMA's projection for the three -mile market area, which indicates approximately 80,000 square feet of market support (including the filling of vacant space and locations outside the City) for medical office space over the next five years. However, uncertainty still exists regarding the impact of federal and state legislation on the medical industry, and what impact that may have on medical office demand. Attachment 1303017.ARC.KEE : emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 7 Limiting Conditions 1. The analysis contained in this document is based, in part, on data from secondary sources such as state and local government, planning agencies, real estate brokers, and other third parties. While KMA believes that these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy. 2. The analysis assumes that neither the local nor national economy will experience a major recession. If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the conclusions contained herein may no longer be valid. 3. The findings are based on economic rather than political considerations. Therefore, they should be construed neither as a representation nor opinion that government approvals for development can be secured. 4. Market feasibility is not equivalent to financial feasibility; other factors apart from the level of demand for a land use are of crucial importance in determining feasibility. These factors include the cost of acquiring sites, relocation burdens, traffic impacts, remediation of toxics (if any), and mitigation measures required through the approval process. 5. Development opportunities are assumed to be achievable during the specified time frame. A change in development schedule requires that the conclusions contained herein be reviewed for validity. 6. The analysis, opinions, recommendations and conclusions of this document are KMA's informed judgment based on market and economic conditions as of the date of this report. Due to the volatility of market conditions and complex dynamics influencing the economic conditions of the building and development industry, conclusions and recommended actions contained herein should not be relied upon as sole input for final business decisions regarding current and future development and planning. 1303017.ARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 TABLE 1 - AREA 1 2012 SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Population 1 Mile Ring 15,500 3 Mile Ring 173,300 5 Mile Ring 409,200 Arcadia 56,600 LA County 9,860,300 Households 1 Mile Ring 5,500 3 Mile Ring 61,300 5 Mile Ring 134,200 Arcadia 19,700 LA County 3,262,400 Average Persons Per Hhold 1 Mile Ring 2.68 3 Mile Ring 2.80 5 Mile Ring 3.02 Arcadia 2.84 LA County 2,97 500,000 - -- 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 150,000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 - 0.00 - Population 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring Households 5 Mile Ring 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring Average Persons Per Household 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T1; 3/28/2013 Page 1 of 17 TABLE 1 - AREA 1 (Continued) 2012 SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Per Capita Income 1 Mile Ring $30,700 3 Mile Ring $31,600 5 Mile Ring $27,500 Arcadia $34,300 LA County $25,200 Average Household Income 1 Mile Ring $82,400 3 Mile Ring $88,400 5 Mile Ring $82,500 Arcadia $97,500 LA County $74,900 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $100,000 $80,000 - $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 Per Capita Income $0 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County Average Household Income 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 3/28/2013 Page 2 of 17 TABLE 1 - AREA 1 (Continued) 2012 SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Household Income Distribution Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 1 Mile Ring 17.15% 26.21% 31.85% 13.75% 3 Mile Ring 15.88% 22.25% 33.03% 15.94% 5 Mile Ring 18.37% 24,15% 31.63% 14.47% Arcadia 14.70% 21.42% 30.83% 16.81% LA County 24.05% 24.44% 29.23% 12.62% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Household Income Distribution $150,000+ 11.02% 12.91% 11.39% 16.24% 9.65% Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 ei1 Mile Ring •3 Mile Ring 05 Mile Ring Age Distribution Under 18 1 Mile Ring 16.16% 3 Mile Ring 21.28% 5 Mile Ring 23.68% Arcadia 17.70% LA County 25.42% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00 18 to 34 23.32% 23.10% 24.25% 24.17% 25.78% 35 to 54 28.86% 28.62% 28.33% 27.49% 28.50% Age Distribution $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000+ CI Arcadia •LA County 55 to 64 13.15% 12.52% 10.97% 13.99% 9.76% Over 65 18.49% 14.47% 12.77% 16.64% 10.55% Under 18 Source: Clantas 2012 18 10 34 35 to 55 to 64 1 Mile Ring •3 Mile Reg a5 Mile Ring mArcadia ®LA County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 3/28/2013 Over 65 Page 3 of 17 TABLE 1 - AREA 1 (Continued) 2012 SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Education Level of Residents Over 25 Years No HS Degree HS Degree 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County 60.00% 45.00% 30.00% 15.00% 0.00% 6.92% 11.70% 19.30% 8.74% 24.21% 17.66% 18.43% 20.15% 16.88% 21.08% Some College 25.08% 28.50% 25.59% 26.25% 25.92% Education Level of Residents Over 25 Years College Grad. 50.32% 41.37% 34.95% 48.13% 28.80% Race Classification 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County No HS Degree HS Degree Some Col ege College Grad 01 Mile Ring •3 Mile Ring 05 Mile Ring DArcadia OLA County White Black American Indian Asian and PI Other Hispanic* 27.93% 1.54% 0.28% 61,57% 8.67% 15.44% 42.23% 2.67% 0.46% 41.85% 12.79% 24.06% 41.77% 2.48% 0.60% 37.41% 17.73% 34.79% 30.27% 1.20% 0.33% 61.23% 6.96% 12.29% 49.98% 8.54% 0.74% 14.26% 26.49% 48.27% Race Classification 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% White Black B1 Mile Ring American Indian Asian and PI Other Hispanic' •3 Mile Ring 05 Mile Ring MArcadia "ILA County * Hispanic population percentage calculated separately from other races. In the 200 US Census, census takers were first asked to identify their race as White, Black, Ameircan Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, or Other; and then asked if they identify as Hispanic/Latino or Non- Hispanic,/Latino. Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 3/28/2013 Page 4 of 17 N 0 > O U > O L 0 0 a LL H O Z wa0 2 V u- >- w < N Q w 5 p H U < (A () N CO M V' h I. O O CO N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 N N CO CO CO V' CO h r N M V' 0 r O 01 CO CO (O CO. N M Cn 0 0 W 00 LC) CO Cr) r co (.)) n co O r-) cri M r V' 0 00 O to N 00 0 0 0 r CO O co 0 N M O O N OI O N (O (O N (° CO O V' V' O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M CO O) CA r V' CO O CO CO CV r N V' CO CO CO r 0 0 0 0) O t` co O O co f` r V O CO 'et N r r O r N N N N N r N C7) r 0) O C) M r csi (O 0 N CO r 0, 4.1 N 0 M O N N CO (f) 0) CO 0 O V' N- CO CO NI N 0 M (0 'V M O V' 0) (0 CO O O N (O 0) O (O N N CD O V: N O r M r5 0) 0) M n 0) 00 r N CO O M W M r N Cn N O N NI ((0 N- (C) et N N 0) CD N CO O V_ O 00 N CO (0 O 'a (7) N 00 r O W (O M O (O N M r M r V N M N V N N CO 0) (° (I) - CO 1` (0 co r co N- (!) co r 0 (3) 0 0 1*-- V. 0) LO 0) (O 00 CO N r. M e- O CMN-- M CO O cri V' f` CO (O V' OBI N r CO N r- co - CO co (I) 0) N CO CO (O 0 O) V; n (1) CO CO 1� 0 (O e- 00 (A M ((‚('4 O M� N CO 7 N O I` 0 (O d M O r V) VM (O I 0 r 0 0 (O 0) M (1 (0 0 N 0 0 _ O e- . V. M 0 0 N 0) N 0) I- r co M V' h N O N O O N 0 N N N 0 O N N O N O O N 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N co V co n N co N N e- O N r r O r CV (V N N N N 0 O N H) 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r V; CO (D V' N r r 0 CD CV r r O r CV CV (V (V (V r CO N CO (C) V' CO CO CO N N. N 0 O CO CO 0 V' 0 N 0 (D N 0) 0) O (D (D 0) V V N () CO V O N N 0 CD cri M 0 00)) O 0 0 N CO r M M N V' C") O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r V r CT) W 00 O ti r O r N r .- r r ." 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m O N M r 0) O CO M N r r N C') M (V CV CV N 0000 000 000 0 M M CV r (V 0 0 0 0 000 0000 (qv: M O m 0 co. r 0) r O r O O O O r r r O r r m > u a C7 m C7 m mi_ o c (°H ao) Y V y Y U N co (C N . C` Cl N o° m c f° U oa a) a) c m U o rn a) 2 a) N O) a) f0 m> a N O C C (u a a v (� a (°) o Q c `o r o2°°< 2 0 o@ ■a`) a) a aa)) o t e 0 m a 0 0= c o o Q� W �a.Onh - DCr J UQOw 2a. OnI - off J Source: Southern California Association of Governments LA County Bus. Emp. Pop.Bus. Emp/Bus. Q e- e- CO e- N O N A r CO 01 CD N N r 1- N P O CO N Q N O N A A D A CO O O M N O A(0 O O � N A A A O C N A P O r N N O O r O A w O' m .7.; O 0 CO Q CO A 4- A CO CO 0 CO 0) 01 A N O V O Q O CO 4- CO Q A O M N A O r r O A M N A Q O r N Q Q N O N A m O O O N N NN A N 3 Q O O O N P O N P � r r r r — N mI� NNV O M 0C /O O O n O N O Q O r CO m m Q Q N 0 r 10 . ei N A 1` 10 Oi N N O M A P A m O r ON O W CA) M O O N - m Y1 Q m A 0 10 0^ e T N Q W O P N O N r l0 3. % 7, O O M 2 V O O 3. r 3 N M P r m O A O' A n O N M N of 0 0 0 N - N P O P of O ) _ 4- Q Q- O N O) OI 0 N P1 ' N - 1'1 YJ O .S; O N CO ' N Q O ON Q 5 Mile Ring Bus. Emp. Pop./Bus. Emp/Bus. 3,372 36,832 121 10.9 190 1,664 2,154 8.8 101 3,397 4,052 33.6 354 5,440 1,156 15.4 268 3,697 1,527 13.8 282 2,212 1,451 7.8 410 2,888 998 7.0 925 13,114 442 14.2 842 4,420 486 5.2 1,638 12,152 250 7.4 460 5,045 890 11.0 186 657 2,200 3.5 424 2,141 965 5.0 522 4,119 784 7.9 46 190 8,896 4.1 7,202 68,311 57 9.5 70 783 5,846 11.2 1,727 7,414 237 4.3 1,587 11,692 258 7.4 342 4,432 1,197 13.0 1,489 18,202 275 12.2 323 1,201 1,267 3.7 422 16,109 970 382 357 4,189 1,146 11.7 885 4,289 462 4.8 196 1,111 2,088 5.7 811 5,200 505 6.4 787 12,957 520 16.5 538 4,181 761 7.8 905 5,379 452 5.9 153 4,516 2,675 29.5 O N IO O O h 2 N N r 1D A Q r Q O O O r A A Q N O A M O M A O 7 e� M A r O N A 0 0 Q :..1 O N 01 O1 A A O 00 O M N 0 Q 13 (0 Q al O m O M O) P O CO A 00 O Y N N Al M O. E w 1C H T D P O N P ^ A n O N ro N m O F. 3 m n h E. 3 ° v a 3 O Z a o u o ro i's eM . Q r 2 CO. O 0 C 0 a u 5 E O N A 0 0 0 p N T O pp N N O) O V M Q Q C pp 04 M 0, O N N Q CO. M M N CO e- 1O N M r a N M N O O n n 10 A 01 04 � r r A N 1 N 4- N CO A N CD Q r r N N r r r ;i N N< M r 0 3- . N N N 0 N 0(N 21,1 M N A n O N O O N O N O T A a m P r V) O 01 N AN ID P Yf 1 Mile Ring Bus. Emp. Pop/Bus. Emp./Bus. 389 5,323 40 13.7 9 27 1,719 3.0 11 829 1,407 75.4 36 418 430 11.6 9 178 1,719 19.8 92 1,159 168 12.6 25 139 619 5.6 101 2,078 153 20.6 106 495 146 4.7 170 1,218 91 7.2 51 588 303 11.5 17 55 910 3.2 50 189 309 3.8 44 360 352 8.2 8 26 1,934 3.3 815 9,116 19 11.2 1 10 15,472 10.0 169 1,121 92 6.6 145 2.580 107 17.8 43 2,038 360 47.4 288 2,077 54 7.2 32 107 484 3.3 38 680 407 17.9 26 180 595 6.9 73 323 212 4.4 16 81 967 5.1 54 229 287 4.2 38 447 407 11.8 41 150 377 3.7 66 261 234 4.0 18 321 860 17.8 1,607 17,146 10 10.7 d C N O I E D m —Dt °6— I rn `o N O m m w e. 'E A d vm<d O E O TI c o N LL rn v 0 m C L^ ad a Q 8 - a c Y Yi ed t OI .. C u E 1 §° Y m s i m U u c rn Z 2 E °i ; w Fs c a E NE' u ro =E. m e% o _, y N L.,'E c E Es °d v N c N N $) u� m _cm ern m 81 F= m t b9 a m rn 2 y )6 c c E E ;cc E 5 cu $ 5 °D. g 'm A ti a3) a m . D E o u O1 v o '�- u U a Q ~m CJ LE LE ;m IA -q AI- u =am ixli w tni i, .111._ D c c t K it A QUmF3 a' _ 7 i- H z W i 0 J W • W 5 chs W N W 0 N W W U Z N LL a • O z m J H Q O W U O a a W W D H N a a d NC! 0oo e .w o w et Q) O V to LO Q) r` r CO O CO V r O) V V V CD r` CO O an CO M N T O O r N N r r r N CO M O r N 0 C) r M a0 C) W() O N N 0 M O) et u) et O N '� r 0. c ▪ w c 0 O ° ° °° 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 ° u„,. d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 ' 0 o e e o 0 0 o e y M 0 O N r V N f� to M I� O M r N O of r m 0 O) O r V V 0 O) N O O) O) O N r O N r N N (o (o O N r N V C'7 ea O O O M O M 0) N (o ..- et (n M M O 00 C r r r r r 0 0 y e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o o e e o d (n r M O ((') Q1 r O r M V V h r M to O) O Q) r co N. co c0 n N w. CO l0 O >. et r N M N r r N N CO CO O r N 0 (O O V N N O O N N O CO CO N M M 00 O N It r `' 0. rn E c W E2 • o000eoe00e0o00e0000000eeeeeoe e (O N O M r W O Q) V (o O N t� M co N V r N N r h (`� )- M N O et C0 0 O N N r O N r r N Lt) (o 0 N r N M O(0 O T O N O) CV N (V 6f) r O (() M K) e- 00 c — N- 85: 0 o e o 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 a) r 00 N M N O O O 0 LA? c0 O) N 7 W O) In N N t` M QI ti a- cl N (O M O O co 0 c V r N r 0 CO CO CO 0 r CO 0 N O V O V 0) 0 CO N N 0 et r• N N N 0 r r 0 O rn E c E2 . 2 0 0 o a OR • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 O V 0 0 0 co. M O) of CA N V N I: V et (n ID O V O N. N. V O et e- h CO M h M • N r 0 N r N N LO (n - CO r CO C) 0 0 0 7 N 0 r (V N (• — (O et N at 0 0 r r 0 CO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 e e 0 e e d O N co V O co O r O) e- V c7 r r N N r In O O) r o O O O N M (O O) h T O • O V' N r CO O N N h CO 0 r N 0 M 0 CO (o N 0 of r r O N 0 e- 7 O r h r r O 0. tL- c w E2 a) e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e o 0 e .... • 0 N O t` N CD o. O M CO CO N r r r 10 n r to O r` O) O et (O o O V et CO v. e- O O et O O N O (n r (D (D O M ,- M N 0 0 0 0 D) N r (V (V r V e- M e4 N et e- O e- O N e- (f) r r O c N m N E 0 121v C 0 y j C L_ d Cr) m 0) r) C O a) o g c O W e C E O ± L U ( C Q L N (/) a) m U) ots (12 o l °t °t O • N a y E 0,5 0 n Q w ) N c N LL aCL N (a c im a) d 0 C U °CI 0 L cc .c 0 0) 0 �°ty o °C� A mmU o °N c y Z c E2 •0 0 o as ,o m (n aj °� = uy m y a cn a) o a) eas e c E F m (tea 32 C 6 O O C C U C Y= 0 t9 to a) N O C0 0 U 0 0 O O a) 0 H •5 a) 00 0 n 0 0 •T ai m aa)) c a) 2 0 o a) 0 o a) y -o o H= 2 A C g m _mC��QQ(�wM (m(n CL I— uxamM2 _J w(na 0 a H m id as 42 2 d c a) O) O (o A Z 0 O cc a 0 a02I -30 1- Source: Claritas; Keyser Marston Associates 0 r` a) 0) d LA County Bus. Emp. PopJBus. Emp. /Bus. 41,056 135,427 240 3.3 6,935 42,533 1,422 6.1 145 514 68,002 3.5 4,367 14,354 2,258 3.3 1,764 6,121 5,590 3.5 1,201 6,736 8,210 5.6 356 1,394 27,698 3.9 1,046 103 9,427 0.1 1,092 53,511 9,030 49.0 735 148,196 13,415 201.6 1,377 11,355 7,161 8.2 1,093 16,973 9,021 15.5 855 17,207 11,533 20.1 5 Mile Ring Bus. Emp. Pop. /Bus. Emp./Bus.' 1,397 5,143 293 3.7 356 1,987 1,150 5.6 6 17 68,204 2.8 154 540 2,657 3.5 68 233 6,018 3.4 50 243 8,184 4.9 16 64 25,577 4.0 20 0 20,461 0.0 64 3,577 6,394 55.9 38 4,473 10,769 117.7 62 406 6,600 6.5 61 780 6,709 12.8 27 369 15,156 13.7 3 Mile Ring Bus. Emp. Pop. /Bus. Emp. /Bus. 593 2,257 292 3.8 175 916 990 5.2 4 11 43,319 2.8 69 274 2,511 4.0 30 104 5,776 3.5 24 133 7,220 5.5 8 37 21,660 4.6 7 0 24,754 0.0 26 1,312 6,664 50.5 15 522 11,552 34.8 30 207 5,776 6.9 28 373 6,188 13.3 15 251 11,552 16.7 1 Mile Ring Bus. Emp. Pop. /Bus. Emp. /Bus. 297 1,026 52 3.5 55 285 281 5.2 2 5 7,736 2.5 26 100 595 3.8 9 41 1,719 4.6 9 32 1,719 3.6 5 27 3,094 5.4 3 0 5,157 NA 5 187 3,094 37.4 5 123 3,094 24.6 16 83 967 5.2 9 94 1,719 10.4 3 94 5,157 31.3 444 2,097 35 4.7 rk Z - §_8 • '� \ §! k 0 6 .9- } i f) v ;!S§ ¥#- J \! {){k§ii {k /]t ..00„ !` _m3 ) )) / \)� /�)kk 0000000azizx ) Source. Claritas cn a. W O CC W CL CO O W W z U N LL Q m O W 0 O J • Q W M 0 CAD • X • Q ▪ o 0 m < 0 0 Q Q d' 1 x << M (D Is- C O N In O O CC) L) O) C]) N V) 0 C) N CO Cf) I,- C9 0 I` C) ( N ^ 69 et 69 69 69 69 69 CD Q) (0 �" (N d C 11 U) O 69 e- 69 CO _ O 0 (/) 7 ,T„ CO C 7 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q CO M O M CO CO et CO N et et O -) O V' Q) r M C) et e C) Q) N CO O 0 N () M CO O CO 0) 69 et C M N M d 0 .- O) Eft CO V C) 69 0 et CO CO 00 CO C O O N 64 CA CA N nj CA O) (0 w 69 69 44 Ea M 69 69 CH O m co CO N r CCOO 69 01 Obi e- CO Tar CO0 () N N N N 00 et N et N N V9 Kf 69 Cf) Vf CA 69 e) CD (f) N y CO E» C/4 69 C) C p U) 3 44 C_ m d 000°0000000c° O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 � ti 00 e- M CO CO N V 0 (` C 0 CO IO co- v) CO 0) Nt= CO N C7) V Q) CV y y 0) CA 0) (/ M (0 N N- M CO 0 O (p Cfl 6/4 E) _ N Efl (» CA O IC y w 64 CO O LO 0 0 C'.1 O h 01 O M CO to (0 N- V' C) 0 69 N CA 0 I` h N H • ()4 Cf) W. (f) 69 0) C) O) 10 N a 10 (fa 69 60 64 69 Cy) C 0 C (1) m • v Ft m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o 0 in o (o rn (� (n cl 0 0 CO 0 M y N N ((0 O( 69 69 (n et' M N o 2; N Ef) (fl 69 (fl (f) FPr Ca 3 u3 CO O • w 00 to o N 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) O M M et O (C) et O O O b 69 N N CO O Ch O CA H04 M V9 69 69 l V( O 0 44 0 y d (fi to CO (s) C p ta in 47 C CO m 7 IA d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V4 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M 0 I,- CO CO O) 0 0 t- V' O 69 (O N N- N (C) 0) O a- () 0 N_ NN 696969 CH 696e969 (A - N m O 40 U) 0w N y 0 y c c 6 . w y () N N C V ,? 8 h U C O 2 O '= y y O O Cn N 2 w N N N 0 0 y — O (0 y y H y = O 0 m O - O N O O 0= a - 0 d V is m a U c?wtVo .4O a 0 • 0 0 0 t. N: o 0)= t CD 0 O O O O T d 'C = O 9 7 8 8 8 8 a 0 L Ny oO O O � E, a O O o a O z= m= cn (5 H Source: Claritas ELES N -o Square Feet Construction N O • a) �a 0 • O a a� a) Z U C U N CO ct rn c N N N N N N N N N N 01 03 EA E9 EFY 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO 1,- N V' Ct N N V L ) ▪ L() LC) CO Ln ✓ r r r r 0 0O 0O O 0 O O O r M N O co ✓ r N N e- 0 0 0 M O LO C) 00 r- L () (. r CA O N N f� O CO N ✓ r r- N 0 0 0 0 0 CO ti M r O) • cci ✓ r r r r LO O) CO 1- N O CO N N O O) N 0 0) co N LO co N CO CO Ln Ln co co LO 14) 0 0 O O O ✓ r r r CD M M M M 10 CO CO Lf) Ln O 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CY) CO LO M N N N r r r r r Cr) CO Cn ri Cei 4th Quarter 2011 1st Quarter 2012 2nd Quarter 2012 3rd Quarter 2012 4th Quarter 2012 (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. o> c c w 0 c a> . ) o aa 2 c m a> a o LL o w a N o o a> m a C p O N . U C 4) co > > U N o G : 02 0 C co a 0 C Sauare Feet Construction U C � U C9 CO Ce 0 .., lL C e CO CO (1) r O z LL CU c Q) U W 6 O W ~ z Q CA O N J m c ,—w Y re m re MI 2 O Ili 1.1.1 U U Lt. LL Q p O z < O N o u- J+� W () w ct Q Q 1 la Q Q 0 .3 (n < r o' cc 1- 4 Q Q 0 00 � CO CO (r7 CO N CO N N E!9 d} 69 6A Ea 69 O (0 N ER M O O O O �O M M r- CO CO r r r r N 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 (0 N N CO r CA O r O '- N CO '1' N 0) N r- N •. O O O 0 0 O 0 CO r• O '1' ON 0 CO r LO r M r Ln '4' M M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 C)) CO C)) 0 CO CO. 0) Lt) CO O) r r r r r N CO CO 0 Lo r• 0 U) r- 0) 00 CO r Lo Ln O Ln r 00 rn y r co co to r 00 co M CO (O 0 CO 00 O O� to 0 L0 CO O' LO N (0) O r dCR') N N 00 CO 1- CO tl' d' •- N San Gabriel Valley Central Los Angeles West Los Angeles 0 0 N CO. 0 O O CO 0 co r- CO M • M C7 LL - c N N L E c en as � 2 o c ∎- U 0. N 5 LL CO .c o_ r 3 o ti g .. U f0 Q) Q ET N N c 2 co N N co c N co L CO 'D U > > d t U ` . c b n co 0 f0 (0 0. N N N f0 c as m 'o > a ID C.) c c > g N Ti;" U C N c t c CP 0) c V Q Market Total Source: Colliers International, 4th Quarter 2012 Page 11 of 17 4th QUARTER 2012 OFFICE MARKET - LOS ANGELES BASIN ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA M V'V' •:1- 0) CO Ea Ea EFI U EA EA O) Vc' N O O CO 0 O r N M N N N Efl H3 b3 EA Ea (A- C p CO ' O V O ` In r C) r V' C E O O U U N 0 Q 0 N a) z N fII O CO a) >- > C Q) U MI CO LL `c CO CO N U O' 0 a) LL a) a- (n 0 O E 7 o O .,-- CO N - L() O Lt) r O co O 'V' CO r CO L) N CO O) - O CO 01 TM- LOn CO N COO 0 0 Tr CO Q) O O - f� O Ln O M O r r r r N r (0 L) In 0) I- CO O CA O O) CO CA CT) r M 0) N 0) LC) r M 0) O O r r In O CO N O) O L() O M co 01 CO CD co a)) ac0 COO M f-- a) O CA I� O COO N M CO ( O I� O N V' r LO OM M N San Gabriel Valley Los Angeles Central Los Angeles West Los Angeles North Los Angeles South N r O O c0 CO In . CO C CO (.6 CO 0 N N 0 M (D a) 2 c m a) a) ci) 0 O`n LL O c t m T-- O C co o O a) S.— a) 15 a N LL O CL a) 8 a) m a N > 0 a) CO C CO N 0 N o > 0 L N 0 'o co o a 0, co N a) 'C m m m U n 0 >o O d O a) c 0 r 0) G U N c Market Total Source: Cushman & Wakefield Marketbeat 4th Quarter 2012 TABLE 10 ARCADIA OFFICE LEASE RATE COMPARABLES ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Asking Building No. Address City Property Type Rate Type Size SF Available Vacancy 1 55 E. Huntington Arcadia 2 37 E. Huntington Arcadia 3 310 Foothill Arcadia 4 124 N. First Arcadia 5 612 W. Duarte Arcadia 6 4115 E. Live Oak Arcadia 7 210 N. 1st Arcadia 8 50 E. Foothill Arcadia 9 150 N. Santa Anita Arcadia 10 149 E. Joseph Arcadia 11 44 E. Foothill Arcadia 12 72 W. Live Oak Arcadia 13 65 N. 1st Arcadia 14 301 E. Foothill Arcadia 15 715 S. First Arcadia 16 225 Santa Clara Arcadia 17 618 Michilinda Arcadia 18 610 N. Santa Anita Arcadia 19 665 W. Naomi Arcadia 20 20 Foothill Arcadia 21 411 E. Huntington Arcadia 22 7 W. Foothill 23 900 S. First 24 11 E. Huntington 25 1035 W. Huntington 26 301 Huntington Arcadia Arcadia Arcadia Arcadia Arcadia Office $1.85 FSG NA 1,376 NA Office $2.00 FSG 6,000 400 7% Office $1.59 MG 4,752 3,864 81% Office $1.65 FSG 3,000 3,000 100% Medical $2.85 MG 57,653 1,000 3% $2.90 MG 848 Office $1.85 MG 7,046 523 7% Office $1.50 MG 15,000 3,200 21% Office $1.95 FSG 18,173 2,459 14% Office $2.05 FSG 81,368 1,355 2% Office $1.00 MG 4,016 1,245 31% Office $1.75 MG 5,442 1,550 28% Office $1.44 MG 2,658 763 29% Medical $2.00 MG 17,127 663 4% Office $2.15 FSG 24,524 1,270 5% Medical $1.90 FSG 7,650 2,500 33% Office $1.90 FSG 21,597 21,547 100% Office $2.00 FSG 240,000 20,007 46% $2.05 FSG 89,356 Office $1.40 FSG 11,800 5,900 50% Medical $2.50 FSG 11,000 3,800 35% Office $2.00 FSG 25,000 6,788 27% Office $2.10 NNN 73,836 1,986 6% $1.80 MG 2,149 Office $2.25 NNN 6,000 6,000 100% Medical $2.45 MG 10,000 1,801 18% Medical $1.58 MG 3,800 3,800 100% Medical $1.80 MG 2,475 1,000 40% Medical $2.30 NNN 86,762 8,423 10% Lease Rate Range Weighted Average Lease Rate $1.00 - $2.90 $1.99 30.8% Vacant Source: LoopNet.com ; Showcase.com 2013; NAI Capital . Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T10; 3/28/2013 Page 13 of 17 TABLE 11 MARKET AREA MEDICAL OFFICE LEASE RATE COMPARABLES (5 MILES) ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA No. Address Asking Building City Property Type Rate Type Size SF Available Vacancy 1 65 N. 1st Arcadia 2 612 W. Duarte Arcadia 3 665 W. Naomi Arcadia 4 301 Huntington Arcadia 23 900 S. First Arcadia 16 715 S. First Arcadia 24 11 E. Huntington Arcadia 25 1035 W. Huntington Arcadia 5 925 W. Foothill Monrovia 6 80 Montecito Sierra Madre 7 9676 Las Tunas Temple City 8 5546 Rosemead Temple City 9 4448 Santa Anita 10 931 Buena Vista 11 4639 Peck 12 819 Buena Vista 13 416 W. Las Tunas 14 420 W. Las Tunas 15 207 S. Santa Anita 17 3131 Santa Anita El Monte Duarte El Monte Duarte San Gabriel San Gabriel San Gabriel El Monte Medical $2.00 MG 17,127 663 4% Medical $2.85 MG 57,653 1,000 3% $2.90 MG 848 Medical $2.50 FSG 11,000 3,800 35% Medical $2.30 NNN 86,762 8,423 10% Medical $2.45 MG 10,000 1,801 18% Medical $1.90 FSG 7,650 2,500 33% Medical $1.58 MG 3,800 3,800 100% Medical $1.80 MG 2,475 1,000 40% Medical $1.65 NNN 6,460 6,460 100% Medical $1.63 MG 600 600 100% Medical $1.65 MG 3,865 2,100 54% Medical $1.40 NNN 13,500 1,202 16% $1.80 1,003 Medical $1.54 FSG 1,953 1,953 100% Medical $1.60 FSG 52,424 17,038 33% Medical $0.98 MG 3,432 1,432 42% Medical $2.30 MG 22,392 10,000 45% Medical $2.50 MG 25,000 1,130 5% Medical $2.40 NNN 7,302 7,302 100% Medical $2.95 FSG 58,017 7,702 13% Medical $0.80 NNN 30,496 11,800 39% Lease Rate Range Weighted Average Lease Rate $0.80 - $2.95 $1.91 22.2% Vacant Source: LoopNet.com; Showcase.com; NAI Capital Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T11; 3/28/2013 Page 14 of 17 O d - = LL a) • C co CI CO N 00) 00) 00) r � � o co N O N (O CO CO CO 14)I� N- VIN. ) ��0o0 N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 1) 0 0) 0) N CO NI ti °° NI M CO CO O > U CO 0 0 v C) 0 CO 00 COI 0 co co co. 0 0) 0 0) 0 0) CO 0�0 CO 0N) ((O tt •N- L) 0 CO V 0) (o O O (O (0 0) CV 0 (0 V 00 0 N N N CO CO 0) I— (r) '7I o V I Ec) CO (O N CO V (NO CO a) 0 v a) co c o a) E -° O (4 Q- o West Covina NI COI 0 CO N Z J ILI > 0 C WMw w a) U � O U To >- W 'D a) a) W W J 0' ui 2 m rn o 6:...") ur m c N m C w U Z Q O o v m o c o c o f c --o m u. U� _'5 � E 5 o � 5'5 u. OWWa u)m 5 Em 5 5 a)m'o 2m'o atS Q 2 co) =_ v m 0 c m m m cmi m m 2 0) 7(;3- a—�i a) m J 1. V Y Q a 0 2 p~ g O~ O c 0 j 0 m W Q C' r/ O a) a) O c H 2 2<< S 2 C7 a S U N U a) N - f0 >, a) v a) a) m to c — a m vi m E m m a) o = E o o a) < N O m CO Op 5 N- O TABLE 13 POTENTIAL OFFICE DEMAND WITHIN A THREE MILE RADIUS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Employment Change Office Employment Percentage Square Feet/Employee Total Square Footage Services Employment Change Office Employment Percentage Square Feet/Employee Total Square Footage Trans., Comm. & Pub. Util. Employment Change Office Employment Percentage Square Feet/Employee Total Square Footage Total Employment Change Total Square Footage 2012 Estimated Office Demand 2017 2022 2027 6,696 7,036 7,393 7,768 340 357 375 100% 100% 100% 220 220 220 74,700 78,500 82,500 28,510 31,534 34,878 38,578 3,024 3,345 3,699 30% 30% 30% 220 220 220 199,600 220,700 244,200 1,666 1,753 1,844 1,941 87 91 96 5% 5% 5% 220 220 220 1,000 1,000 1,100 36,872 40,323 44,116 48,286 3,451 3,793 4,171 275,300 300,200 327,800 Total Square Footage Through Term of Projection 903,300 Source: Projections based on.California Economic Development Department employment projections (2010 -2020) for LA County. Employment Percentage and square footage assumptions made by KMA. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T13; 3/28/2013 Page 16 of 17 TABLE 14 MEDICAL INDUSTRY OFFICE DEMAND PROJECTIONS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Estimated Medical Industry Office Demand------- - 2012 2017 2022 2027 Health Care Employment Employment 6,397 7,150 7,991 8,932 Change 753 841 940 Office Employment Percentage 50% 50% 50% Square Feet/Employee 220 220 220 Total Square Footage 82,800 92,600 103,400 Total Square Footage Throup Term of Projection 278,800 Source: Projections based on California Economic Development Department employment projections (2010 -2020) for LA County. Employment Percentage and square footage assumptions made by KMA. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T14; 3/28/2013 Page 17 of 17 PROJECT ADDRESS: 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE, ARCADIA, CA 91007 PHOTO 1: PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING WEST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) pHOrtO 2: EXIST/Ng RACE AR ENTRP�1 CE. (VIEW! 1,16r NORTHWE �FRM NvtJTuErTD� PHOTO 3: EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING SOUTHWEST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) PHOTO 4:EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING SOUTHEAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) PHOTO 5: EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING EAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) PHOTO 6: EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - MOTHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING NORTHEAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) EXAMPLE GLASS CURTAIN DESIGN ELEMENT: SUGGESTED AS A POSSIBLE DESIGN FEATURE FOR SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS XAMPLE GLASS CURTAIN DESIGN ELEMENT .4 N H z W 2 W J W z 0 N W 0 Z_ a H ct u H of 5 0 W J a 2 a x W EXAMPLE GLASS CURTAIN DESIGN ELEMENTS C a ow N jE ° it N It Si EIE a A E o ° f § y 4� zA ga ��� �' , k d < Y W 3 4�� " i i i ?. 9 @ 4 4 oRo x BEE100011111 ,°-I0B ®9000® ©A 6 ©M� JI III _IIIIII_IIIII — �� ! :•i Ail" to B 4 4 - ggp S" III_IIIIII_tll III {r c � �: I a � G e t g 5 1- W26N H r Y €£.K d'Y e. _ \ J p - 6 2.53A1 v� .,,,v 2 '''' � b 3.111210 NO.LONUNDH ii: I: -4T-1— YS � F .I EA! ! 3i 31330 • ;!...; ti? VgIMM • • • .... ......, . _. 14 „,_. • • . - ye 6�0. I,� ak fey animus �." �- o\ aisia EIIIIII IIIIIII 41 iF A • Ve Sid f ��� , • • �° : ► ;sees. ''Ie e n i1 11 )� < x — • , � 7 — • AVM 0Y0N 7YN2l3.LNl __ ': �. �_ o 0 1 O z Q ZH4 5 U i 3LL ��� vai Q a q 1 , Ai ' .9,E " i Z W p Wp O p O ^ r j H S p W J p p m p p p J O I= C.; 00 pn Zw me 19 WP Sz S 3 �p ¢ J < p cc cc u FO z d A d9 < V O p C G 6 D6 V To¢ J 1 LL < :AVE. < U V S B q 11 6 Z ¢ �� —, m K p k n ^• W t 7C 1I I� I 4 F Z U F W Oi1r F < O = § O • 2.;< _ ey3y F h I W }o iaJ ' W zZ aO- ilio rmem miuma ma Z Y 4 Fj o.ci M .O-.9 iha J y6 KC MO 0 6 9 N YE: • y$ {pia t h FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1 J I E O LL Ati vossualonow wow Kum.. sors“ au AO .0 II XI 01. swoon sa nous sauwoosos sus 1115 1N1 ;m.o. us nos am wow. Worm. sloo mans. ”MS Pos.. usu. swum.. Tou uu P.n. As wo swo Ns ow • soo Twos ow wow., Two 40034 SIO.,1.19. .11.113 00 ED- 0 I 9-, L6 .I-.LOI SECOND FLOOR PLAN MhiF l 10 SW01 01 1037 SW /GUM ca g cc o 0 LL ton 0 10 01011 1 csa •1001110 CA• THIRD FLOOR PLAN 0 0 1 LOI n 311 son ITN OM 1111..111.9 71.1 4.0,114 Ye nom... nommo ©0 9-.LE p ® O O O 9 O n laiza x Etza ofilas iJ m 0 I 9 -.LE FOURTH FLOOR PLAN HALE 8 11:45;*, 3io - � -3$; ,_ E _I =E 5 3 x`g,£IIIR aff it Shen Tide: ROOF PLAN � t 1 tr tr et ROOF PLAN s SCALE 4 -� METAL PANELS /// PAINTED ANGLE BRAGS f PITCH POCKET NP EQUIPMENT SCREEN S`A 1 2 a/e -i -a' e e Aq Q63i 4 b 4, 1,3! n , yry F. 0 n I0 �o .,0 -. -- ---, j-- i y —1 1 N W ,,,it PARAPET EXT. SCALE 1 —. —. H _..1_ G i ry � + — _ _ • 1 I �/ �_ i e d �I 1a1'Mr- .�I L � DETAILS _ m o E a @1 �i 62�� L_<# --� -I 1 '.-1/ ii Wv © ■ 1 " ai w 1-11 r r- O 1 1 1 1 1 1 L i_1 11 r .O-91' II n ; u ■ IR " 4 �I �� 1 1I 001 _ _, 100 i 1 a a, , 0- - / 01= za_ Iz 1 0 o c 1_•111111•101111■1111111 11..IMinliiilliiilgildil! I MIII1111 YI111111n1IIIII II'IIIIIII1I1'I1 Iw1�wwl ■wwu�■�w 111111IIn1191d11IYIIII II 1111IIIIIIIU1 0 •1 11 II1YI111111tifiI III11111IIma. 101111 1 III'IIII�I1Ii11111n11111111I111 IINIIjI11 IiMI�Y 1iilliNuiffilmili111111111111N. IIIMIIMIIIIIMIE 1II111111InIII1111I1111111IIIl1 N'IIIIIIJIIIII111 1111111111111111 1 1111' I I'1! 11 a•1111111 (•IIIII 11111 1111111u1' 1 MINI� 111111111111111.11111111111111111 111111 111111111 IIII 0 0 1111n11lCnln■11l 1 n_.w■ww•ww■ 1111111II 119III111UI I III11111111111 1111111 miammormums I�I1111BInlliJ1111n1IIlIII111111 11111111111 ■.�w■w■wwsw■ I.I II Id111UI11111111■11111I 11111111111III111 �I\1u1 ■In•uuu1 I�11111''1YI I I I IIr1Y11IlI111!Iii11111I 1111111 ■ �.�ww�w■ww�ww■ 11 ►■ n\In•Inuq ■1 111\ n111111M11 \1 IIY �■FRIPl1 11 n �:n: �ji1R � \111 11■ t7■IEuIn1 !II him �-i��.■�■ 1 al 111■ ��IL�Itln1 I11 NI M111 ' -- �3C1 1111 n■I�\l1►U1dUI ■w _.I_..w ■ww■ II .ww��wr.ww■ 1I1111111■1Ihll11n11IIIII III''IIlIlll lJi111■ .1.1.I�.YY.1 .I 11111111111111111 ■I I III 1 111' 11111111 11111 MIN M1�■n0.1 f 111111Y1111111Y11III II 11111111 1111111 ■1�1•IY■Yiuuu •I 11111111U11I111111111111I11 11111111111111■ r'riiimrii n1.n1 --Y.Yn1 INN 1111111■n11I111■1111111 1!1111111 II11111 «a It■1- ■.I•m.Ii•u WEST ELEVATION 0 1- 0 0 0 !AIL 1141.311 ° _I'1am•• 1111111111111111M1111111 11 11 1111 111111111111111=111111 111111 111111 it l 1111111•IIII111 IIr o 1III I11 1'IIIr1IIl Iii 111111 II! 111N11YIIIII1IUIL! ►111 1 1111111 (IIIII IIkI'I IIIIIiIIII!1 1111i111 1111 11111IIIIIIII 11!11 1111111111 11 1111111!111'' ''Ill 11'1111' 1111111 11111 11111111111 1 I 1 II "' 111 Z 0 m III Uh: I'IV I; II'IIYI1 II11 II Ij1IIIIIi111$1 nIYY ■1Is1 n11'111111YIiU111•IIII II#IIlIllIImH111 nl■1ii•Yuiu1 ii1II a Ill 1nnlIllll III IlII111111 n , or_1 I:mYI-UI •I 11I1IVIYI111111 1111111111111 1 111111. Km • II 1I= 1111111 11 I 11 111 111111 111 11 11'' 1111 1 1 :11111111 111 II 111 EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION 0 Y 1 1 p c p 00 0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 664£— £9Z -9Z9 :XV! 9f62—£9Z-9Z9 :131 90016 VO 'VIOVOav V 11Nn 'OVOa 9N18(109 6t9U '0NI `S31YIOOSSV 103 L0016 V0 `vIavDdv 3111e1a NOIONIJNf1H 'M 69Z NOISIMO8flS S1O1 -Q 50, 440 Hi LAW IN1 = I, i i'! \\ § < .- \ \� j� ii! ill 1 ithil \\\ Ow 3 PIT \\\ kag4 6 1r 111X ft!iIllI 0:C 10 \,, , / r • MIME 1 a 665£- £9Z -9Z9 :xyJ 99S£- £9i -9Z9 131 90016 V9 'VIOYO EY V llNfl 'OVO21 ONI IO1O9 61811 '0NI `S3lVI30SSY 103 • 2 gli ill ! yam: i 1 i iql r; ili a <0 64C ipsi 411 d is NJ of do 11! S1 jiII ® o o o L0016 VO VIOVOW `JAIe14 NO.9NI1Nf1H •M 69Z NOISIAI f1S S101 -2 II _ I _ ►LDLiAVM 7dIN3LN301 M.£LLCLSN IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NI IN Ell N MINI MM. S ■ o ■:7= 1111 11"" 1,1\ g 12 i iv! Filo, a g pt i bI b " 1 giL 111111 HUNTINGTON DRIVE &DRAFT DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 1869 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. SP 13 -01, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 13- 01, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13 -01, ZONE CHANGE NO. ZC 13 -01, AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13- 04 FOR A 4- STORY, 70,096 SQUARE -FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, in January 2013, Mr. Dick Hale submitted applications for Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. 13 -01, Zone Change No. 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. 13 -04 for a 4- story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development at 289 W. Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said applications, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, after the public hearing the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. 13 -01, Zone Change No. 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. 13 -04 for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development at 289 W. Huntington Drive; as recommended by the Development Services Department and subject to the conditions of approval recommended by the Development Services Department. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division in the attached report and Mitigated Negative Declaration is true and correct. Section 2. This Commission finds, based upon the entire record: 1. That the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan as amended and the goals, objectives, polices and action programs of the City's General Plan as amended; the proposed Specific Plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare or result in an illogical land use pattern; the proposed Specific Plan is DRAFT a desirable planning tool to implement the provisions of the City's General Plan; and the proposed Specific Plan is consistent and compatible with the terms of the General Plan, as amended by the proposed General Plan Amendment. 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; the proposed General Plan Amendment will promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as amended; and the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent and compatible with the terms of the General Plan as amended. 3. That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and proposed Specific Plan; and that public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice justify the proposed zone changes. 4. That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map is consistent with the City's Subdivision requirements. 5. That the proposed Architectural Design is consistent with the City's Design Standards. 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. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. 13 -01, Zone Change No. 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. 13 -04for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development at 289 W. Huntington Drive. Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2013. (Signatures on next page) �J DRAFT ATTEST: Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission I at ix *mt iat ' 1114 _ r MI.P1,104NONIMIr I ittkpovH„,ei 'Prr Ilsoftfri4lit41"1111111RIRRIE1 0. 11 0 . I. ri. . t li-JA:;11 ceurvey SUE WPM oNoN NNONJNIONar.Nnt.la MINN Kw. ixoN, 14.....ONINA.mr,NrArnoaran 11.1.01.4.11 kW. orm coom•mos PROJECT INPORMATION 285 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA. 13-056 • RADIUS MAP OWNERSHIP MAP SCALE 1' = 200' SUBJECT LOT