Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a: Medical Office Developmentu0 �i �nluni[y ot% DATE: TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT Development Services Department May 21, 2013 Honorable Mayor and City Council Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE 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. Recommendation: Conditional Approval and adoption of Ordinance Nos. 2307 & 2308 and Resolution Nos. 6865 & 6866 SUMMARY At the May 7, 2013, City Council meeting, a public hearing was held on the Hale Corporation's proposed 4- story, 70,096 square foot, medical office building. The May 7, 2013 staff report is attached. During the hearing, an attorney for the owners of the adjacent parcel at 301 West Huntington Drive presented the attached letter that details their objections to certain aspects of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is attached to the May 7, 2013, staff report. The attorney also mentioned that there is a dispute regarding the applicability of a parking easement between the property at 301 West Huntington Drive and the Santa Anita Park property, on which the proposed medical building is to be situated. Aside from the applicant, this was the only testimony presented with regard to the proposed project. Since there were no others wishing to testify, the City Council closed the public hearing. Due to the length of the letter (16 pages) and the technical nature of the contents, the City Council continued its discussion of this proposal to the May 21, 2013, regular meeting to provide staff with time to review the letter and prepare an appropriate response. The primary statement of the letter is that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequate for the proposed medical office building and that an Environmental SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 — Continuance 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 — Page 2 of 4 Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared City Attorney and will be presented to meeting. The response is being prepared by the the City Council at the May 21, 2013, Prior to tabling the discussion, Council Member Kovacic inquired whether Arcadia Methodist Hospital was in agreement with the developer's proposed walkway over Huntington Drive and the placement of the elevator tower on the Hospital's property. The Council Member also asked if the developer would be responsible for the maintenance of the bridge. With regard to the parking easement concern, the City Attorney has revised the recommended Condition of Approval No. 4. In response to the concern raised by Council Member Kovacic, Condition of Approval No. 5 has also been revised. These revisions have been incorporated into the proposed Specific Plan that is attached to Ordinance No. 2307. Pending the City Attorney's response to the letter, and based on the revised Conditions of Approval, it will be recommended that the City Council conditionally approve the project. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conditionally approve the project, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 72193, introduce Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308, and adopt Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866. For Introduction ORDINANCE NO. 2307 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN — SANTA ANITA 1 AND THE SPECIFIC LAND USE REGULATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN FOR THE HALE MEDICAL CENTER ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 289 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ORDINANCE NO. 2308 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE ARCADIA ZONING CODE; AND AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY FROM "S -1, SPECIAL USES ", TO "SP -SA1, SPECIFIC PLAN SANTA ANITA 1 ",WITH RESPECT TO THE HALE MEDICAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 — Continuance 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 — Page 3 of 4 For Adoption RESOLUTION NO. 6865 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13 -01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM "SANTA ANITA PARK COMMERCIAL (0.3 FAR)" TO "COMMERCIAL (0.5 FAR) ". RESOLUTION NO. 6866 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13 -04 FOR A FOUR - STORY, 70,096 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE. Approved: Dominic La77arelt6 City Manager Attachments: May 7, 2013 Staff Report Aerial Photos of Site Planning Commission Resolution No. 1869 Photos of the Subject Site and Surrounding Properties Architectural Plans and Renderings City Council Study Session Minutes from October 2, 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis Conclusions Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Arcadia Office Market Study by Keyser Marston Associates Proposed Revision to Zoning Map Tentative Parcel Map No. 72193 Radius Map Letter from Neighbor's Attorney (Manatt) Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866 `tip Gti4tr0 xv��ly,�� Au _usi 3. X903 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: May 7, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION 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 FOUR - STORY, 70,096 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. Recommendation: Conditional Approval and introduction of Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 and adoption of Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866 SUMMARY The applicant proposes to build a four -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 - aerial photos of the site are attached. 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). SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 2 of 16 • A Zone Change to revise the zoning from S -1 (Special Uses) to SP -SA1 (Specific Plan — Santa Anita1). • Architectural Design Review approval of the proposed building and pedestrian bridge. This proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on April 9, 2013, for their consideration and recommendation to the City Council. At this meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1869 (attached) recommending to the City Council conditional approval of these applications, subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval, which included a requirement to further enhance the design of the east, west, and south sides of the building to improve the aesthetics of the project and more closely match the front entrance of the building (north elevation). It is recommended that the City Council conditionally approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration by introducing Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 and adopting Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866. DISCUSSION 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 mall on the west, and Colorado Place on the north and east (see attached aerial photos). 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 lots with approximately 15,550 parking spaces. The proposed project would be developed on 4.25 acres of the 301 acre site, located in the southeastern parking lot area adjacent to an existing medical office building. Photos of the site and the surrounding properties are attached. Properties to the southeast and east of the site are developed with the Methodist Hospital and associated medical offices, Arcadia City Hall and the Police Station. 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. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 3 of 16 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; construction of the medical office development was completed in 1987. A pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive connects the medical office building with Methodist Hospital. The proposal would develop a 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park parking lot with a four -story, 70,096 square foot medical office building and a 366 space surface parking lot. A pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive connecting the proposed development with the Methodist Hospital property is also proposed. The project has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.38. The new four -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 was 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. These proposed enhancements are shown on the attached renderings. 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 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. The proposed 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 SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 4 of 16 spaces on all Saturdays and Sundays, public holidays, weekdays after 6:00 p.m., and when a Breeders' 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 Since 1996, the City's General Plan has designated 85 acres of the southerly Racetrack parking lot as "Commercial" and described the type of project envisioned for this area. 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 concept of this project was brought 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 City Council did initially express concern with the possibility that by "breaking off" this 4.25 acre parcel, the commercially- designated 85 acres of the site would be 14 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. 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 SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 5 of 16 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 project has been developed mostly in accordance with the Commercial Office zoning, including a Height Overlay of six stories (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. A Specific Plan may alter Zoning standards to fit the unique characteristics of the area within the Plan. In this case, the proposed Specific Plan development standards match the development standards of the CO -H6 zoning /height overlay, with the following minor variations: • Parking lot landscaping as proposed in lieu of 10% of the total parking lot area and one tree for every five parking spaces. The project provides approximately 10% overall landscaping throughout, but does not provide 10% for the total parking lot area or one tree for every five parking spaces. This is due to the fact that this is an existing parking lot and the landscaping and trees have been added mostly to the perimeter of the site, along Huntington Drive and the entrance from Centennial Way, where they add more value. This is a preferable option to removing existing parking area to insert landscaping islands and planters to meet the letter of the Code on this issue. • 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 Municipal Code requires one loading area per 10,000 sq. ft. of building without consideration to land use. Medical office uses do not require this level of loading for large vehicles and equipment at the rear of the building; rather, there is a heightened demand for pickup /drop off spaces near the entrance. In reaction to this, the applicant has provided a large commercial loading space as well as a drop -off area in front of the building, which is much more suitable for the medical office use. 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 SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 6 of 16 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 (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. The conclusions of 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 because of a small "pinch- point" portion of the pipe near Holly Avenue. 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 a portion of the existing pipe. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 7 of 16 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 -15 and to construct the improvements in Fiscal Year 2015 -16. The developer has submitted an area sewer study to determine the impact of the project on the sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer must pay a fair share of the construction cost of this sewer project. Based on the area sewer study, this fair share contribution will not exceed 5% of the total project cost. 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. 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. The mitigations and Project requirements, both on and off site, are listed in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (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 a third medical office building project under consideration in the immediate area. The Development Services Department retained the services of Keyser Marston Associates to evaluate the medical office market conditions in this area. The attached "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 office space. 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. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 8 of 16 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 lease commitments to fill 60% of the proposed square footage are already in place. 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 0.3 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 Santa Anita Fashion Park mall to the west and to cultivate this unique combination of regional attractions in a cohesive center... SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 9 of 16 In 2010, the City completed a substantial General Plan Update. 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. 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. 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 would not inhibit the 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 ". In addition, Page 2- 69 of the General Plan states that, "It is likely that new development will occur in a number of increments. Individual increments need to yield a cohesive, viable mix of uses, and should not be predicated on the construction of a subsequent increment. Development needs to appear complete." This is the first "increment" to be developed, but as such it meets the intent of the General Plan and does not conflict with any General Plan goals. The only actual General Plan Amendment that is required concerns Floor Area Ratio. The entire 85 acres of the southerly racetrack property includes a FAR Overlay of 0.3. This 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. The vast majority of commercial property in the City, including the adjacent 301 W. Huntington Drive property, has an FAR of 0.5. Because this Specific Plan will only apply to the 4.25 acre property included in the proposal, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to change the FAR to 0.5 to be consistent with the adjacent property and the rest of the commercial property in Arcadia. In actuality, the FAR proposed is less than 0.5, as the 70,096 square foot medical office building represents an FAR of 0.38 on this site. This amendment reflects the unique nature of this site. The General Plan has a number of applicable strategies and overall goals for the subject property, including a goal to preserve views of the Racetrack from Huntington Drive to the south. The proposed development would not obstruct views of the Grandstand from Huntington Drive at the southern portion of the site. 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 SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 10 of 16 Drive. Views of the Grandstand will remain intact along this stretch of Huntington Drive 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. The proposed building is compliant with any commercial development zone in the City that has an H6 or greater Height Overlay, does not include a parking structure, and does not convey an overly massive appearance in this area. For these reasons, the increase in FAR for this property is appropriate. Zone Change Currently, the 85 southern acres of the Santa Anita Park site are Zoned S -1 and R -1. The addition of the Specific Plan will create a new zone of "SP -SA1" over the 4.25 acre project site. There will be no change to the zoning of the remainder of the site. A Zoning Map showing the proposed revision is attached to this staff report. The proposed breakdown of the zoning is shown in the table below: Zoning Acres Proposed Development SP -SA1 4.25 Hale Medical Center — Medical Office Use S -1 & R -1 80.75 Horse Racing & Parking Lot — Same as current All development within the SP -SA1 Zone will be consistent with the provisions of the Specific Plan. To facilitate the zone change, a new zoning designation will be added by amending Section 9231.21.1 within the Establishment of Zones Division in the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: 9231.21.1 SP -SA1- SPECIFIC PLAN — SANTA ANITA 1 And, the following will replace the existing language in Section 9297: 9297 PURPOSE AND INTENT Specific Plan Santa Anita 1 is a planning tool to guide development and design of the Hale Medical Center building and includes the zoning designation of SP -SA1. Regulations and design elements for the SP -SA1 zone, with related implementing actions, are set forth in Ordinance No. 2307 adopting Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1 for the Hale Medical Center. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 11 of 16 Tentative Parcel Ma The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (attached) would subdivide 4.25 acres from two existing parcels totaling 301.74 acres. Subdividing the development site from the rest of the property will facilitate the sale or leasing of the site. Unlike the medical office development at 301 W. Huntington Drive, this site would remain connected to the Santa Anita Park property by three vehicular driveways at the west and north ends of the parking lot. A parking agreement has been reached between the developer and the owners of Santa Anita Park (see discussion in the Specific Plan section of this staff report). The new parcel complies with all of the City's subdivision requirements. To ensure that vehicular access remains open between the two properties, a vehicular access easement is recommended to be added to the Parcel Map as a condition of approval. Architectural Design Santa Anita Park is a world class site and any new project should read as an excellent addition to this site. The Development Services Department's response to the original design proposal was that the elevations, while complementary to Methodist Hospital, were 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 was as originally proposed. At the April 9, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting, the architecture of the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff's recommendation at this meeting was that further revisions be made to the east, west, and south sides of the building to improve the aesthetics of the project and more closely match the front entrance of the building (north elevation). One specific suggestion was to incorporate glass curtain projections into these elevations to correspond with the large glass curtain design element at the front entrance to the building (north elevation). Minor revisions were also recommended for the pedestrian bridge and Methodist Hospital elevator tower. The Planning Commission agreed with this assessment, and the recommended revisions to the architecture were included as Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for this project (Resolution No. 1869). Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer has presented staff with revised renderings to meet staff's original recommendation. These are positive changes which will add to the overall aesthetic of the design. The east, west, and south elevations have been modified by adding accents and architectural features to the tower elements to make them more prominent. In addition, the rear (south) elevation has been modified by SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 12 of 16 adding a horizontal "cap" feature to the roofline and additional articulation and vertical elements to recall the glass element on the front (north) elevation. The attached renderings depict the modified elevations. At the April 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, minor adjustments were recommended to the location of the elevator tower and pedestrian bridge support column to comply with the City's setback and driveway visibility requirements (Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 1869). Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer has revised the bridge support column to comply with the sidewalk setback requirement. On further investigation, it was found that the driveway adjacent to the proposed elevator tower is an entrance only driveway, with "no exit" signs displayed prohibiting /discouraging use of the driveway as an exit. As such, the visibility area requirement is not applicable to this driveway, and no revision is needed to the location of the elevator tower. At the April 9, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, the landscaping of the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff's recommendation at this meeting was to revise the landscaping to provide a five foot landscaped buffer between the parking lot and the east property line, and enhance the landscaping between the medical office building and Huntington Drive. The Planning Commission agreed with this assessment, and the recommended revisions to the landscaping were included as Condition No. 4 of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council for this project. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the developer has revised the landscaping to incorporate these recommendations into the design. As such, no further revisions are recommended to the landscaping, and the landscaping recommendation has been eliminated from the recommended Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Services Department prepared the attached Initial Study and a 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 (April 15, 2013, to May 7, 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 May 7, 2013 Page 13 of 16 PUBLIC NOTICE /COMMENTS Public hearing notices for this item were mailed on April 16, 2013, to the property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 1,000 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 April 15, 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 April 16, 2013. As of Tuesday, April 30, 2013, staff had not received any comments in response to the notices. FISCAL IMPACT There is no expected fiscal impact to the City as a result of this project. The developer will pay a fair share amount for the necessary upgrade to the sewer system, and will pay all other necessary utility and development costs. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council conditionally approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration by introducing the attached Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 and Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866, 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 elevator tower at the Methodist Hospital site and pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive shall be revised as follows: • 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 May 7, 2013 Page 14 of 16 3. 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 -15 and to construct the improvements in Fiscal Year 2015 -16. The developer has submitted an area sewer study to determine the impact of the project on the sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer must pay a fair share of the construction cost of this sewer project. Based on the area sewer study, this fair share contribution will not exceed 5% of the total project cost. 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. 4. 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 Breeders' 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. 5. A license agreement with the City shall be obtained for construction of the pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive. 6. 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. 7. 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 structures may be subject to the issuance of permits after having fully detailed plans submitted to the City for plan check review and approval. 8. 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. SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 15 of 16 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Approval of these applications shall not become effective until the property owner(s) and applicant(s) have executed and filed with the Development Services Department an Acceptance Form to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council conditionally approve the project and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration by introducing Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 and adopting Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866: Introduce Ordinance No. 2307 adopting Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1 and the Specific Land Use Regulations contained therein for The Hale Medical Center on the property located at 289 West Huntington Drive. Introduce Ordinance No. 2308 making certain amendments to the text of the Arcadia Zoning Code; and amending the zoning designation of certain property within the City from "S -1" to "SP -SAV with respect to The Hale Medical Center Specific Plan. Adopt Resolution No. 6865 Approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01 to change the General Plan Land Use Designation of the property at 289 W. Huntington Drive from "Santa Anita Park Commercial (0.3 FAR)" to "Commercial (0.5 FAR)." SP 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, & ADR 13 -04 289 W. Huntington Drive May 7, 2013 Page 16 of 16 Adopt Resolution No. 6866 approving Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04 for a four -story, 70,096 square foot medical office development at 289 West Huntington Drive. Approved, Derx�ir�ie La�zare�t� City Manager Attachments: Aerial Photos of Site Planning Commission Resolution No. 1869 Photos of the Subject Site and Surrounding Properties Architectural Plans & Renderings City Council Study Session Minutes from October 2, 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis Conclusions Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Arcadia Office Market Study by Keyser Marston Associates Proposed Revision to Zoning Map Tentative Parcel Map No. 72193 Radius Map Ordinance Nos. 2307 and 2308 Resolution Nos. 6865 and 6866 �INCIN Subjecl Properti AIM LO r •., • y .. I T , 7, - r n. �•g;. 5l' , E LdW Santa Anita Park Property - SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, m4•,Yot���' TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 II p m r i a i q of jF 46 Vii: • , �; f. 1 i•FtYa � e` N � 9 1 i (i C104 a . # .OmlI ,rM of AR v`+1G,y1FOrtyy 289 W. Huntington Dr. 4=734, SP 13 -01, G PA 13 -01, ZC 13 -011 TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 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 April 9, 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 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 -04 for a 4 -story, 70,096 square -foot medical office development at 289 W. Huntington Drive, subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto. Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. (Signatures on next page) Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2013. —* ATTEST: Se ,crefary "— APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 1869 - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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. • 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 final version of the parking agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director and the City Attorney prior to the issuance of any building permit. 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 compiled 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 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. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, Jim Kasama, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1869 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Chairperson and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on the 9th day of April, 2913, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone, Parrille and Chiao NOES: None ABSENT: None Se ry of the Planning Commission PROJECT ADDRESS: 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE, ARCADIA, CA 91007 Alk • s, PHOTO 1: PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. (VIEWING WEST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) (VI EWl N4 NORTHWEST "L-Y FROM HuWrl"Cr -r0" bR-) FMU I U J: EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING SOUTHWEST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) s, PHOTO 4:EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING SOUTHEAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) FNU i U 5: EXIS I ING MEDICAL BUILDING - METHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING EAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) VHU I U b: EXISTING MEDICAL BUILDING - MOTHODIST HOSPITAL. (VIEWING NORTHEAST'LY FROM HUNTINGTON DR.) HALE MEDICAL CENTER 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA, CA 91007 SUMMARY, ZONE, CO -H6 LAND, +/- 185, 273 SF BUILDING, 70,096 SF FAR, 37.8 % FOOTPRINT, 17,959 SF LOT COVERAGE, 9.6% LANDSCAPING, 21,615 SF 13.% PARKING, REO'D 5/1 350 STALLS PRV'D, 366 STALLS ADA PARKING 8 STALLS CAV PARKING 29 STALLS BICYCLES 18 SPACES S ELEVATION E SECTION LIB PLAN 4 GENERATOR ENCLOSURE EAST ELEVATION sw• ME9I�AL C'EHTE0. ELEVATION SIDE PLAN MONUMENT SIGN �FROP. Lllg ALE OF BLOB. I 4� � ]'TIB RAIL .7p ;I�_RMevIAn LOCKING GATE SANTAI ANITA PARK ]' TeB RAIL 2p, �TEaMEpInTE A � C p r WROUGHT IRON FENCING CENTENNIAL WAY t7t7 :1. ill I,I I. w'. SITE PLAN KEYNOTES: o PRpPER —.11L P ARe EXLSnNS cc,+c cEae Arm atrTER ro R9MAIH O9 t¢,r s' SroP.W1.K O CxlsnNe LAtmsLAPINe To REMAIN ® e� LOxCRL'TE nPw011 - PeR LIT'/ STAeroARD O LAeroSLAPE PLAHiER AREA O r@N AB9YLr PnViNe - YE CINL DEPnwclHe sTwPPIHS FER urr sT.MmApD +e• wce non AccBSS ERa+ eRlsnw dvr.,ALc 101 AOA PN+KINe STALL 94: 10'4 lO3 A LaApnu hSLC 5119' O.LE $TRIPPEp non vw ncces�BLS _wACe Lonowe 94.1eo• 0 Aon P.MwHS srAU ro sleH PEa w9 r-u —A PMKINS LOI ENiRAHGC IO 516N ©ENHANLFO PAVRG MATERIAL O RrVSEp 1'LWiEW SEAnNe AREA a YYOE xl9' �He . 12- H— MpMa a eR ®p H�, LIeM, POLE ® e'LGtK. YNtgL STOP TTP. o LHARepG ernnoH �/ o IA- 0 xFloe LArF. Fnvinc. sECnoH TO YIPFORT'IpaOp LB YEI9HT. O Bu.K-KFLLYI PREVeHnpN VALVE. SLf>FET@p MIiN suave HEOSes o BnLOle�e AopRE99 -�• LERERS MR ]e n Re API. Kelp% WA LOLAnON EEJ pL E 91oe en E 'a Q : . 111111- r ISf p0l - HALE 9uildm &Dev Iqp m H* ra,-. St3 S. -1N. AM., SW @A Ma 'G91016 W: 636358 -143 he 626359.2467 Owner SN Hat LLC 5I3 5. MyNe A� SWte A Hawda, fA 9IOIfi N,m: 269 West NuItllxJlm a Alvdla, CA 9100) Cnluviunls: P+W[ex The Hde Cap cw: Ea Assoc 5ms: 71( &, Sbmt,d: myt M.NR :l: SMmlm 6g E1s.Llyd: -h Eg im En9 land .pe: T2A sum T,, � SITE PLAM Em�ooTu� 6Hn 9� 6r F3 Beri;km;: A -0 -j BRIDGE PLAN E ELEV N ELEV LITE BRIDGE TO Am, BY OTHERS R LD U) LU ELEVATIONS 1\01 40.M IM swArr HALE Build— & D ... lup- W; 62&HEI-15 fax; 62.3592467 %H NMI L" 513 SANi6e Are, S A w .vl% C 91616 P'.ja M W. llft D, Art ' a 91607 C. AAN— Thew 1l Carp M. EaA- 5&.- . En . 5-1: R.ublm: 51. EkW.L 5hM ft Eng, La�d-W. Phl wy 'J, Ew. All— E-9 snm� rim: BRIDGE N Omn 6Y 66 Shat A-0.2 b HALE 1 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 41 B.ild— a D—kq ae ie P The Mm AT Un IB2' -1' a 5135 MyNe Aye.,S A M..Ml G 91016 S�S Id• 6i6- 356943 26' -B�" . � — � � 21 ��_�. �_ � 2p' -O "-�" Ej � ` 71' -2' 26•-0 p hs: 6]63532967 r- ` O COVERED EMRY � � 21' -0�• � e O O B 0 - ^ LOBBY O 1088 SF M O SH N LLC. m 5135. MyNe AVe, SJkA B MmrIM9, G 91016 O — � OELEV 1 o I o- - - -- m O 5 a ELECT n I I — — cm,.wU F kc*= The Hilo Cap CM: D a EAss« Sm.: rA Bgr sln¢tleal: wv�moro Mahaniml: SnzMm En9 I'- �' oO $ IT°^bin9: ShurJm E E, a 9e-Irlal: S.D ng 4 WQUapc: T60 Y 0 0 h O m 6 O I n O I %-TWl ^ FIRST FLOOR PLAN v O O F a omm or. r @ oam �IZIo a:wH9 :: 2r-oj- 3 26' -H 21•_2' 21, -�' 3p' -p" �_�„ 21_2. 26' -B� - NORTH p 5 IS T SCALE Slicer 7 II z A -1 s FIRST FLOOR PLAN n HALE 1 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8. Bunts & Dcv [l ,, E The Hale foTV IB2' -I" .- 5135. MyN,.9101 GA Mon 0i G 91016 1e1: 62E350 I 21 -oJ� T' -2' 2l' -2• 20' -0' 2'f' -2" 2T' -2- 26' -B�" @ lag: 62S359.29fi) Z- yy9 a � O O B O Oa OaO Oa0 A s — — — - B n I I I I o O ry h 0 SN Nnl LLC 513 &Myrtle Ax S A Muv x91016 I I a - -- - - - - -- -- -- S Pmlc4: O B - -- t - -- SHAFj! r — — — — — — — 63Q HALC I I I LOBBY O II � I� I I � � � medcd center O® 1 2R9 HU hg uz 0 Noma.G9111 m — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- - -- IF - - m n o 5 e O � I I I i € _ O e adtlLL t ilk Hak Cup - -ice ® T D g5g OHI: E0. W¢ 8 515: TK En9r BB SWCUN: Mlyamb ? McEb4: 5ham4n El a MuT ShuNm E 1: < Ek<nkal: SnaMm 6g q 1n ^dwPC: 12p m I I d p 6 Shcn TRlc: 0 6 SECOND FLOOR PLAN E O O a a Q Q a a a O Q O a a O O a a O O O B B O O � v�oFn lll�mor ull� O O F e mra er H9 3 — flerisbnz: 26 —Hj 2T' -2" 27' —]" 20' —O• 2T' -2" 26'— 8 $a P 102' -1" � snag. "a a A -1.1 3 SECOND FLOOR PLAN scALE THIRD FLOOR PLAN HALE Builders 6 D-1,T rs The Hde Carym 513 S. Myrtle Am, SWh A gaamr6, G 91016 Id: 62 &i5G45D far. 62&359-2967 Owner. 5H Nul LL 513 & gy0leAM Suh A ..,W , G 91016 mm 269W ¢ ftffTmOr Anx01a, U 91007 wWh¢: The Hde Ca UA: El Ataoc SaO: IE g Strutlwd: myanotn McCan ShmNn En q-d } SRaMm 6g Ekctrkal: 4umgn EYg landsvpe: T80 Rc-;Ti�le: THIRD FLOOR PLAN goMd llunbr GIID ma�ni or ra oac iizu fln %kn *: A -1.2 b HALE X Builders &D -1,pers e ]ne Htle cumoaum 4 n 6 7 $ 8. sl nmvo ecn sio e p � Itl: fi26356a5)3 tax: bZ6359 -316] IB2' -i" y I I 3 3 QA B �`g• oww�e i g a MYJeA .c 513 i MyNe Ave, Site p O ry 4 fioniovla, CA 9IOt6 O b m O I O Ruiue _ - -- - - - - -- pµgp R O - -- - --- ELEV � ��L� t6 �� SHAgf A LOBBY ® I_. o N I I I zasacamaNrp 9lm]� �71 Q T � — — — — — — — — — — — — — A I � I O 3 Cn[uullavla: O esYk 1K Engr A 6lectriral: yurwn by 0 sn � z _ c ¢ ��rme: m Q I I O ^ s FOURTH I I m FLOOR PLAN O& amixu naeuv c.11a e mw�or. nH e ovz iiz.la 0 ^0 AQ AQ 2b'- 21'-2" 2'I' -2' 20b" 2l' -2' 2'1•_2• 26- b IH2' -I` i 5 snex: z A -1.3 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 5� I'e-.r -r 1 s Y 6 e e. b 1 HALE T Builders &Dcr 1l , tBZ' -I" 36'_BI� - Thelak Caywatlpn - 5135. MyNe AVe., SW@A 155 la 3T, -3, ZT_ • _ _ ?7 Z BI� 76 _31- 31'-0 662 35 O O 11 IT 17 _ O � o n rs 01 I I 1:1 El El I HVACEQU[P � O.ner H I c sB nal u.c 513 5. MyNe Are, Su'R p � MoIUMy G9lelfi ELEV ❑ ❑ r �; rl: e ELEV I „rte r ❑ � ❑ � medic center 289 W.nulrtlMlala � Nm9a, G 91881 I I I I � icokww,l..: I I a AiRJRit ,neMakea, IS OvO: Ed Assoc Sofls: TK Em � MS ewCla�n�: 4wmM 6g y� PI NM: 6hmim E, a sewt1l: 9mntlm Og landsvpe: reo 1 I. y„5 NORTH RITURE'SOLAR FIELD' I� b a ROOF PLAN 3 O Z fV 0 - P -r 6wnoc uZ ROOF PLAN scALC M Be+n BY 85 312 -3 i 2' -O" O A ALUM. PANEL5 T, METAL PANEL5 A O Bb S 5 sn�c LKANC75LE'ERACE PITCH POCKET TYP- § A -1.4 DETAILS PARAPET EXT. srxEp 3 EQUIPMENT SCREEN sca E 2 SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS HALE Builders & a:v I p— The Halo CorlvMla, 513 S Mydl Ave, 01 4d: U , 35 6e A G9m 1:626 he 6359296] 207 62 Onner. SN Nat L 513S"Ave,S A Manrnvla,G91016 Pmlea: medicd center 289 Wes Hu "O. D, Ma ,.9100] Csnuulbnu: OftldD =cC The Hale Cup Ufl: EGL ASSOc SoOS: TK Enry 9trutlurm: Myamom Merhankm: SharNm Eng Gfiuudn9: Shanilm Eng E]a1maL• SunYm Eng Und�pe: Teo sea Tia ELEVATIONS KEYNOTES: neFarmTx: c -il� ELI eoHeane r .�„ . m o,a,„,sr 63 � coHCnne rve� % oa>e : iz.l; Q rush .N,n � n:w.xr,s. ETI Es uuarur srwerxoHr, urAaa Axooaaro - a �s r v+ sn_ue,w awrz c wroun� a xe reE�. r�mm. e A -2 SHRUBS Aides s. indira'FDnnpsa'. Azalea Strepula taginae, Bind Dl Paradise f ,� fir,,; �`• —_._._ X t Buxus m., Japanese 13—al PDdoca,pus lL. Long Leal y h - .d GROUND COVERS �_- - ��'r... .ti •�� yr, Sl Tmchelvsp —raj, star Jasmine N dins H rb D d. D dH Iye hD Phvrmium L'Jack Spmtr, Jack Spmtt Flax - PERENNIALS TREES - - 4r PLANT LEGEND ALE L _I ' F SYY9DL BOTANICAL MAYE COMYDN NAPE sRE g_ FARDR COYYMs I Builders &Dvvclvpvs TeE Y.� cb t, 'Manny' NCN 24• bvx a N Th. Nah Cpmva9m HF Coryola cram tuhtad PoM 36• boa 4 N min. 1p' }rwk 513S.MptICAva,5uMA ® c— devdvm D adar Cedar 36' boa 1 M manmdaa%M ® CuPVrvapvn vnomraivatles eanvtwvvtl Tree 24- box 18 N ask fi36M5 M Syv9ruvommotnutf.— Queen Palm na Fam 2e bez 21 M rain. 1p' N k c 2462 r. - SHRVBS HememeaR6 hyhdtls. DaylTy La emhomia indi GrAine MYrUe Amulus'Madna. NCN ®O ntl Aaba Fomm 5 ge 56 M B-- ro. taias Jopvnnc Bovaotl 5 gel 101 M NmMmo d'HVrbvur 0.rod' DwH Heavenly 9amboa 5 gal 5 el M N PhRVdendmn M _ '�` Pbiloaendran '%wvdv' %anado g 39 11 �ry•t] Phormium L 'PiM Stripe' Pn4 Stripe Flm 5 qpl 39 M n 'Y i © PM1arm1um L 'Jack Spmlt' Jock Spm Flm 5 gel 397 M ' ` .: �•. ). ! -{� �� - �� PSV�eal'tam-i�.. el_ Be. .1 —1 YO--d eootl 15 wt B2 22a u -� 9r PEREN- trr- - O Agapan— ofri..ass lly of the Nib 5 qW 399 N O e Crmv a,W.la K W, Lay 5 gvl at N Clma minran, Crm'a i - © -Iss bicolor Fortnight Dy 50 45 M _.. -_.. O Hemem H. hybddv OayIIN 5 gel M6 M C.Pamap Valdes D atarbca. LgMUMDLpVER r C—..d Tree Tasmanian In. Fem ® pphivpogan jvlaonica Mvndo Grew 1 gal 535 N �A 0 Tmchelmpennum i imids, Slur Jvsmins flvtp 12 N rt. _ � � PraWde 6 -a• aobme clamp amana lrte tnmxa. .r , cipN4 Pmaidn 3- lay- of aecvmpmed gnsnils (Polm Spdngv GaM) ,d y sruaDL 9pTAxIpAL "ME EXISTINGG PLANT LEGEND Q,T LOMYEMS Di I h color, Kalfir lily '+ gpM5 Cvvvis leptvphyu, Gold Med.1.. Tree 9 M remm r 1 Cvamv ds.— peedvr Ceder 1 tv rtm ' r 1 Lageztmemiv intlipa —Ps My— 1 b ra rJl Mag— gmndNlvm Magnolia 19 to rtmvl hr_ —ng sa,. lrem pole Polm 5 to rtmvr WavNngtorva mbunta Nmimn Fan Pvlm wnn 21 lv rornN e ',r _ syagrus ramanzalranum Caryvla mans, FaMall Pam M PAM ...g Ivnds -,s tv mmam in plot. Agapamhus a., Uly Df the Nile - W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE I I�i�l I I I I�i�l I I l �4 �IIIIIII tl Uw- mixes oalvm � S9H xnl LLC 513SMyNe AVe, SWtA MmevvN,G91916 plan[ p 12".., pram Q 12- E Y §H L } MWe Haaftjtsn@ p AAa9y G91WJ h le] z N `t Canpul— � TMHaEFap ad: ESL 0. sdi. T Egr. SlmrLnab Kwasxah P c rkt sses*a EAgr. ph n g: SI Ea,. Sellkd: ShNnM&W. Ivsewt mmay L0. p sh erTale 6 PLANTING PLAN (SGUTH) 9e PmMNmb. sea g Dmm9p g9 ■ eat 2-13 ICI L -1 ZUILDING , li 11M - W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE I I�i�l I I I I�i�l I I l �4 �IIIIIII tl Uw- mixes oalvm � S9H xnl LLC 513SMyNe AVe, SWtA MmevvN,G91916 plan[ p 12".., pram Q 12- E Y §H L } MWe Haaftjtsn@ p AAa9y G91WJ h le] z N `t Canpul— � TMHaEFap ad: ESL 0. sdi. T Egr. SlmrLnab Kwasxah P c rkt sses*a EAgr. ph n g: SI Ea,. Sellkd: ShNnM&W. Ivsewt mmay L0. p sh erTale 6 PLANTING PLAN (SGUTH) 9e PmMNmb. sea g Dmm9p g9 ■ eat 2-13 ICI L -1 SHRUBS Azaleas indlca'Fomlosa', Azalea X 'd Buxus m., Japamsa Bumood StmftWa regime, Bird of Pamtlise L. Pod.catpus h., Long Laal Vegow -w.otl GROUND COVERS kv R� Tm tab pemum j., St Jasmine PERENNIALS TREES I / � SYMBOL BmANILAL NAPE eGj- Y' O Arbutus 'MVrina C.ryoty ure Ccdrw deed- _ � CuPVrdvpaia mram tlaa D.k,,ana antar5w 4 � o—.,'r S � � 5yvgme mmonzvlRervm Hamemcmf, hyImds, OayfdyY `V• a sxaues Lagemlmma and .Grape Myrtle Am.lus'Manna NCN ®OAmk. s. IMko 'Fvrma¢o' /� Buaua m d. H Iop 9' ¢mina d.'¢roenr Dart• Pnaaaenamn x¢nme TSr t Phormium L 'Rnk Ship.' '•� ^� 7 Phvrmium L 'Jock Spmtt' _ _ ®© Poavwrpua M1enkeL'i t..a Streldzs mginve yi S __ PERENNMLS cf c mmi. vtncvnua ©M.iv Iv pemgigbwcvbr CMm Imata. Clivia � - _11 � Ile Irybrim PLANT LEGEND 5 gal WATER �MY(M NAYS S E OtY. FACTOR COYYENi6 NCN 24' box e M Fnhtvg Pohn 36' boa 4 M min. ID• trunk Devdor L¢tivr 36' boa 1 y Cvn Tree 24' box 16 -Itm Taamvni¢n Tree Fem 24' boa 5 Y 0ueen Palm 24' bw 21 M min. 10• Wnk Azvl¢o F.__ 5 gal 56 M J.ponme B.—..d 5 ,d 101 M Dwod Heweny S.— 5 gvl M M xvnvav Phavd¢ndmn 5 gvl M Pink Stripe Flax 5 gol M 39 M J.rk Spmlt Flm 5 gol 397 M fang Lent Yalm mod 15'. D2 M Bird of Pomtlne 5 gal M M fly el m. Nile Wfl, uy Fortnight my D.11"y - Cupaniopsls cztdioides -Dicks na antarica, _ GROUNOCDVER s._4 Catmlw..d Tre Tes an Tr Fem ® DPhtvpvgvn jvpoMw Mond. Crva 'in 2�► r "' _ ® TmcM1N¢apemwm IaammaAa Star J¢¢min¢ jt .®.. Prmitle 6-6' wbbly stones .round tree 1m . / Provide 3' 1— of decamp d gmnily (Polm Springa gob 5 gvi a96 M 5 gal 81 M 5 gvl 45 M 5 gvl 206 M ­d cvl.m 1 gvl Say M plwt D 12' v.c. tlola 12 M pl.nl D 12' o.c EXISTING PLANT LEGEND .�- SYYBOL BMMI— NAPE COMMON NANE SRE OTY. COMYLMS Dmtes bl.lm, K.Mr Lily TREES j � 4 rmis. �H Le ce i" II"wphyl (1 ingeatm¢ma Intl ra ( = Mognvaa grvna"ilbm Ph.enlx aaaynem Wvahingbna mbualy o do ccie. Tre¢ cm Mydle Mvgnvliv D.le Palm Mniwn Fon Pvlm were .aria fes .mead Byagms remmlz.f .uM Queen Palm CWYDM Umns, FISht l Palm Existing bndccvpe ]n remmn n Plod. B b rem b remvin b rem n 6 >e mmvin HALE Budd —& Dcvvl.pcls ThHr' rpm'adpn 513 Shrylje Ave, m, A wb Q(,G9M 1� 62635E -193 Fac 61635_ 246] Ounce S3H Nat LLC 513 S MyNe Ave, SW@ A Mdmwla,UglOt6 4 rmis. �H Le 1B9 West HwNmtvnIX b AuEa,U91W) E CmaWtamr. g kdl Tk Mak Cmp S.11M TKbry. 511�rab Nyanmmllltl. M�oelbl: 9Mndm 5gr. MYnbMg: SNZm6n Fngr. ' MmM Fgr. fanUnddkal: � smpe: Rd May L0. L E s PLANTING PLAN(NORTH) t e PlaKtllbaa6c (kiln ti � DamRr. ne a h Y oat stls � n. -tl:tve a k b E � !f L -2 HALE Medical Center (Bridge) Bridge with horizontal pickets and IPE decking. L: \JOBS \G1123 - HALE Medical Center \Marketing \Bridge Elevation IN ht METHODIST HOSPITAL IIIIIMM . . . . . . . . . . Ell J, 301 MEDICAL BU Porn- '!07, L 1 � - --, Fr = -- a - - - i" -- __ - . _ -- -w �� .�:' '1' _ � _- 1 < ,�� � ��Irti T - y' I � I Wr � c, j r �� � � f, _ '� %c' - �. ,�_ - - �,_ j" t w � -• � � r ' / � } ` � � ;�, n' .mil' . - -_ �.. -wa ,._ f�!��'- r� 54:0113 CITY COUNCILISUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 20'12 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 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, California 91016 LLG Ref. 1-134008-1 ' NO TR #944 x c TRI B78 IKp 06 30 1� %3o f Prepare By; Under the Supervision of nSenit Greenspam Eng or nEn Gresnspan.Engineees 600S.iakeAvenue ng, P. Clare M. Look - Jaeger, P.E. SUR0500 sport a' er Principal Pasadena, cA91106 820962322 r MUSZ9947 F www.ligenginears.com 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 Iess 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. LINSco r,LAW&GREENSPAN, engineers LLGRe£ 1 -13- 4008 -1 Hale Medical Center Project 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, Zane Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04) 1 ..y ANA 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 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. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Aesthetics El Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources Geology / Soils [1 Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology 1 Water Quality Emissions Materials F-] Land Use 1 Planning Mineral Resources F-1 Noise F1 Population 1 Housing [1 Public Services Recreation r-J Transportation /Traffic E] Utilities I Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 2 of 28 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: f-I 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. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant . effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] 1 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. 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. Signature Tim Schwehr. Associate Planner Printed Name Date �Asl�_ 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, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made., an EIR is required. Initial SludylMilfgated Negative Declaration Page 3 of 28 Fife ft SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZG 13 -01. TPM 1341, AOR 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 XVI I, "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. s) 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 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, El L1 E 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 95 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 E ® El 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 Fife 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 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Page 6 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, zC 13 -01, iPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 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: 5P 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 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? 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: 5P 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 CalEEMod analysis for the site preparation and grading phases of construction. With these standard conditions, the CalEEMod 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 Rule 1113 - Architectural Coatings. in addition, architectural coatings should not be applied to no more than 10,500 square feet of construction per day, including both interior and exterior surfaces. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 8 of 28 File No: SP 1$.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 111(b) of this Initial Study (AQ -1), the project-generated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, CO Sox, PM1o, or PM2.s. 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 "f=inal 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 lll(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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: 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. B10 -1: A qualiffed 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 110 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 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 comer 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 § 15084.5? 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 geological resources. Therefore, the project will in no way destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. The right -of -way is surrounded by developed properties and located in an 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 StudylMitigated Negative Declaration Page 11 of 28 File No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 (a, i-iv) The City of Arcadia contains two local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over a 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. The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other designated earthquake hazard zone; nor is it located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the proposed development. b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 0 Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 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 local fault zones: the Raymond Hill Fault and the Sierra Madre Fault. The extremely thick alluvial deposits which underlie the seismic study area are subject to differential settlement during any intense shaking associated with seismic events. This type of seismic hazard results in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over a 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. The project site is not located within an Alquist Priolo Study Zone area, or any other designated earthquake hazard zone; nor is it located on a hillside where landslides may occur. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected as a result of the proposed development. b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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 slabs. 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 SINPPP 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 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 9990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 9990 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 -9) requiring a $2.98 daily transit subsidy to be made available to 900% of employees who work at project site would reduce estimated GHG emissions to 2,998 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 -9: A minimum daily transit subsidy of $2.98 shall be required to be made available by employers to 900% 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, ASR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 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 E ® ❑ ❑ 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 9990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 9990 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 -9) requiring a $2.98 daily transit subsidy to be made available to 900% of employees who work at project site would reduce estimated GHG emissions to 2,998 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 -9: A minimum daily transit subsidy of $2.98 shall be required to be made available by employers to 900% 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, ASR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: 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 Callfornia 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 E El 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: 5P 13.01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ACR 13-04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land ❑ El ❑ use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The subject site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There would not be any 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 ❑ ❑ E 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 57975 -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 ❑ ® El 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: 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 wafer /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 developed 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 ® E 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 -7 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 degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? The additional volumes of stormwater runoff created by the project would be negligible and would not significantly impact water quality. 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 700 -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 7927 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact j) Expose people or structures to inundation by L1 ❑ seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 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? ❑ ❑ El 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 9996, 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 2090 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 7996 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 309 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 -7 (Special Uses) to SP -SA9 (Specific Plan — Santa Anita 7). 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, ZG 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues: Impact incorporated Impact Impact c) Conflict with any applicable habitat El IR conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 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 ❑ E] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? There are no known mineral resources on the subject site that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- L1 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 Is 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 El El 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 ® El 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. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 20 of 28 File No; SP 13 -01, GPA 13 -01, ZC 13 -41, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 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 land ❑ ❑ El use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project 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 -t11, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR i3-o4 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No issues: impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase ® ❑ in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? The 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 land ❑ ❑ El use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project 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 -t11, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR i3-o4 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 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 El E ® ❑ 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, ACR 13 -04 The following intersections were studied. I. Baldwin Avenue/Huntington Drive 2. Gate 3 -Holly AvenuelHunt►ngton Drive 3. Colorado Place/Huntington Drive 4. Santa Clara StreetlHuntington Drive 5. Santa Anita Avenue/Huntington Drive 6. Centennial WayMest Huntington Drive 7. Centennial Way/East Huntington Drive Based on the analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 972 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 257 trips during the PM peak hour, and Z602 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 ❑ EJ 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 XVI. TRANSPORTATION 1 TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or ® El 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 fdp generation, anticipate distribution of project vehicle trips, and analyzed existing intersection /corridor operations. The following intersections were studied. I. Baldwin Avenue/Huntington Drive 2. Gate 3 -Holly AvenuelHunt►ngton Drive 3. Colorado Place/Huntington Drive 4. Santa Clara StreetlHuntington Drive 5. Santa Anita Avenue/Huntington Drive 6. Centennial WayMest Huntington Drive 7. Centennial Way/East Huntington Drive Based on the analysis, the proposed project is expected to generate 972 additional vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 257 trips during the PM peak hour, and Z602 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 ❑ EJ 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 W-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? ❑ 0 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 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ❑ ❑ programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? The proposed project would be consistent with policies supporting public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and the applicant has proposed to install new 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 ® E 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 (C1P) 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 Fife No: SP 13 -01, GPA 13-01, ZC 13 -01, TPM 13 -01, ADR 13 -04 Issues: Potentially Significant Impact 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 With Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact No 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 project's 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 El ❑ ❑ 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? 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 relevant 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 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 relevant 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 F Alt G,ylPOi�.� Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Specific Plan No. SP 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General i�.o f�iO3 Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and c`�Rb3yo¢ 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 Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Notes Responsible for Mitigation Enforcement Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure 1, Air Quality AQ -1: Low -VOC Architectural Coatings. The applicant The Project Manager shall be The Property Owner, Project City of Arcadia — Planning and should use low -VOC architectural coating for all aware of the SCAMD Rule and Manager, and On -site Building Services. buildings, including the proposed parking issue instructions to the Superintendents. structure. At a minimum, all architectural contractors that the architectural City Building Inspector shall coatings shall comply with the most recent coating should not be applied to periodically conduct physical standards in SCAQMD Rule 1113 — more than 10,500 square feet of monitoring at the project site Architectural Coatings. In addition, architectural construction per day, for both during construction period and coatings should not be applied to more than interior and exterior surfaces. document results in project file. 10,500 square feet of construction per day, including both interior and exterior surfaces. 2. Standard Conditions Issue instructions to each The Property Owner, Project City of Arcadia — Building, SCA: Minimization of Disturbance. Construction construction project for Manager, and On -site Engineering, and Planning contractors shall minimize the area disturbed contractors to incorporate these Superintendents. Services. by ,clearing, grading, earth moving, or standard conditions. excavation operations to prevent excessive The contractor will prepare a City Building Inspectors shall amount of dust. construction air pollution control strategy to report. periodically conduct physical SC -2: Sail Treatment. Construction contractors shall monitoring at project site during treat all graded and excavated material, All grading operations shall be c construction tion period and document exposed soil areas, and active portions of the suspended when wind speeds, results the project file. construction site, including unpaved on -site as instantaneous gusts exceed roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment 20 miles per hour. Periodic shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, grading activities inspections periodic watering, application of shall be made. environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for Enforcement Notes Mitigation Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure and at least twice daily, preferably in the later morning and after work is done for the day. SC-3: Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors shall monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. SC-4: No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one - hour period). SC -5: Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on -site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent streets and roads. 3. Biological Resources BIO -1: A qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird Where construction is scheduled The Property Owner, Project City of Arcadia — Building and surveys in areas with suitable habitat prior to I during breeding season March I Manager, and On -site Planning Services. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for Enforcement Notes Mitigation Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure all construction or site preparation activities 1 through August 15), shall Superintendents. that would occur during the nesting and engage a qualified wildlife breeding season for native bird species biologist to conduct pre- Considered complete upon (typically March 1 through August 15). The construction survey and identify biologist's final report. If survey area shall include all potential bird appropriate treatment. The construction is not scheduled nesting areas within 200 feet of any wildlife biologist shall prepare a during breeding season, then no disturbance. The survey shall be conducted report upon the completion of report is necessary and the no more than three days prior to surveys (if no nests of special- schedule shall be included in the commencement of activities (e.g. grading). status birds are present or nests project file. are inactive or potential habitat is If active nests of bird species protected by the unoccupied) or upon completion MBTA and/or California Fish and Game code of construction activity that could (which, together, apply to all native nesting disturb special- status birds that bird species) are present in the impact area or are present. The biologist shall within 200 feet of the impact area, a temporary have the authority to initiate buffer fence shall be erected a minimum of protection action in accordance 200 feet around the nest site. This temporary with the procedures described buffer may be greater or lesser depending on herein. 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. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for Enforcement Notes Mitigation Agency /Monitoring 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 standards to control and reduce erosion. Following ground- disturbing These measures could include, but are not activities for all applicable limited to, protection all finished graded slopes projects. It shall be considered from erosion using such techniques as complete upon documentation of erosion control matting and hydroseeding or compliance with erosion- control other suitable measures. best management practices and 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 sea] 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 provide a construction schedule The City Building and Public to do the City prior to issuance of Works Inspectors shall a building permit or grading periodically monitor the catch 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 of Arcadia -- Development be required to be made available by employers include this transit subsidy Services Department to 100% of their employees who work at the requirement in the lease project site (289 W. Huntington Drive). This agreements for all tenants and City Staff shall require a copy of condition shall apply only to the Operations occupants of the medical office the signed lease agreement that Phase of the project, and not the Construction building. includes the transit subsidy Phase. stipulation prior to approval of a business license application. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for Enforcement Notes Mitigation Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure 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. 6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials SC -6: In accordance with the California Code of The Architect and Engineer shall The Property Owner and City of Arcadia — Public Works Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541), if any locate all the underground Project Manager Department, Building and construction, excavations, and new utility lines pipelines and electrical lines that Planning Services. are proposed near or crossing existing high are greater than 60,000 volts, pressure pipelines, natural gas /petroleum and coordinate, and coordinate The City Building and Public pipelines, electrical lines greater than 60,000 with such owner /operator and Works Inspectors shall volts, and other high priority lines are required obtain any necessary approval periodically monitor the catch to notify the owner/operator of the line and prior to the issuance of a grading basins during construction period must identify the locations of subsurface lines permit or building permit from and document results in the prior to any ground disturbance for excavation. the City. project file. 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 A drainage plan shall be The Property Owner City of Arcadia — Building, drainage plan to the City for approval by the prepared by a licensed Engineer Engineering, and Planning City. The drainage plan shall include post and submitted to the City for Services. development designs that ensure adequate review and approval. Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Responsible for Enforcement Notes Mitigation Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure capacity to accommodate and prevent flooding of the site and adjacent roadway. 8. Transportation /Traffic TT -1: The location of the pedestrian bridge access The Architect and Engineer shall The Property Owner City of Arcadia -- Development stairway at the Methodist Hospital site shall be modify the design of the Services Department revised to be outside all driveway visibility pedestrian bridge to be outside areas. of all driveway visibility areas. TT -2: The location of the pedestrian bridge support The Architect and Engineer shall The Property Owner City of Arcadia — Development column at the west -side of Huntington Drive modify the design of the Services Department shall be revised to be setback a minimum of pedestrian bridge to setback the 18- inches from the adjacent sidewalk. supports a minimum of 18- inches from the adjacent sidewalks 9. Utilities and Service Systems The developer shall provide a The Property Owner City of Arcadia — Development construction schedule prior to Services Department USS -1: Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the issuance of a grading or building project, the developer shall perform an area permit issued by the City. if study to determine the impact the project will construction will occur prior to have on the capacity of the existing sewer the City's Capital Improvement system, and such study shall be subject to Projects, the developer shall approval by the City. This study shall be used perform an area study and to determine the adequacy of the sewer system submit the analysis to the City's and the required fair -share contribution for this Public Works Department and project toward the sewer improvement project. Development Services Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Department for review. The Occupancy, the developer shall be required to study shall be used to determine construct the necessary improvements if the the adequacy and the required Mitigation Measures and Standard Conditions Monitoring and Action Notes Responsible for Mitigation Enforcement Agency /Monitoring Agency /Reporting Procedure 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 I 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. t ADVISORS IN PUBLIC/PRIVATE REAL ESTATE DIVELOPM'ENT MEMORANDUM V i, W, IN I,FAI T:,yi'Afi. To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg AIU<,iYVABI.,i:lkw3 'No I':i;tiI M,II: L?LVi:It3i',t,E IVI City of Arcadia - A, JrNVV KLYwilli From: Kevin Engstrom ii ."i "MYC KI'LL`+ KM1 EARSI HINK M Imm Nil ](J uN CC: Mr. Jerry Schwartz Rl:f.t:? 1 KA%% HAi.A Date: March 28, 2013 KASi €I €'.IN hl. MAO J'"1i'` A. RAU Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study 61,, c;(ait k�l.lr- �_ IS s.ait Pursuant to your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) evaluated the medical G1 VALD M. Tiiimm i. office market conditions in the City of Arcadia (City). As KMA understands the situation, PAAJ1. C, XIAR RA 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. ' The market areas extend from 300 Huntington Dr. in Arcadia. 500 SOUTH GRANS] AVENUE. SUITE 1480 lb- LOS ANUELE5. CALIrORNIA90071 "- ['FI.ONE 233622 8095 i FAX 213 622 5204 1303017.ARCXEE:emm I+VtiV W. KEYS E AMAftSTO N,CQM 10200.008.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study • Over 15% of the City households earn over $100,000. March 28, 2013 Page 2 • 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 less 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). 130301TARC. KEE:emm 14200.006,001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg March 28, 2013 Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Page 3 C. 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. The average sales per establishment are lower in the market area compared to the County average. OFFICE OVERVIEW The office market is summarized below: 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 1303017ARC. KELemm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study March 28, 2013 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 10200.008.001 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). 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. 130301TARC. 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 130301TARC.KEE:emm 10200.006.001 To: Mr. Jason Kruckeberg Subject: Arcadia Office Market Study Limiting Conditions March 28, 2013 Page 7 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 10200.008.001 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 9,850,300 Households 2.68 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 Source: Claritas 2012 Population 500,000 400,000 300,0130 200,000 100,000 0 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Households 150,000 - - - 120,000 90,000 60,000 — — I 30,000 0 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Average Persons Per Household 4.00 3.00 — 2,00 1.00 — — -- 0.00 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County 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 $82,400 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 Source: Claritas 2012 Per Capita Income $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 — $0 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia LA County Average Household Income $100,000 $80,000 — $60,000 $40,000 — – $20,000 - — $0 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring Arcadia IA County Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables: T1; 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 18 18 to 34 35 to 54 55 to 64 Over 65 Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $1501000+ 1 Mile Ring 17.15% 26,21% 31.85% 13.75% 11.02% 3 Mile Ring 15.88% 22.25% 33.03% 15.94% 12.91% 5 Mile Ring 18.37% 24.15% 31.63% 14.47% 11.39% Arcadia 14.70% 21.42% 30.83% 16.81% 16.24% LA County 24.05% 24.44% 29.23% 12.62% 9.65% Household Income Distribution 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Under $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000+ e1 Mile Ring 03 Mile Ring 05 Mile Ring oATeadia aLA County Age Distribution Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fiiename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 312812013 Page 3 of 17 Under 18 18 to 34 35 to 54 55 to 64 Over 65 1 Mile Ring 16,16% 23.32% 28.86% 13.15% 18.49% 3 Mile Ring 21.28% 23.10% 28.62% 12.52% 14.47% 5 Mile Ring 23.68% 24.26% 26.33% 10.97% 12.77% Arcadia 17.70% 24.17% 27.49% 13.99% 16.64% LA County 25.42% 25.78% 28,50% 9.76% 10,55% Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Fiiename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 312812013 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 Some College College Grad. 1 Mile Ring 6.92% 17.66% 25.08% 50.32% 3 Mile Ring 1110% 18.43% 28.50% 41.37% 5 Mile Ring 19.30% 20.15% 25.59% 34.95% Arcadia 8.74% 16.88% 26.25% 48.13% LA County 24.21% 21.08% 25.92% 28.80% Education Level of Residents Over 25 Years 60.00% 45.00% 30.00% -- 15.00% 0.00% No HS Degree HS Degree Some College College Grad. MI Mile Ring 03 Mile Ring 05 Mile Ring MArcadia 9LACounty Race Classification White Black American Indian Asian and PI Other Hispanic' 1 Mile Ring 27.93% 1.54% 0.28% 61.57% 8.67% 15.44% 3 Mile Ring 42.23% 2.67% 0.46% 41.85% 12.79% 24.06% 5 Mile Ring 41.77% 2.48% 0.60% 37.41% 17.73% 34.79% Arcadia 30.27% 1.20% 0.33% 61.23% 6.96% 12.29°% LA County 49.98°% 8.54% 0.74% 14.26% 26.49% 48.27% 80.00°% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Race Classification White Black American Indian Asian and PI Other hispanic' Bt Mile Ring ■3 Mile Ring a5 Mile Ring MArcadla _ CLA 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 HispanicJLatino or Non- HispaniGLatino Source: Claritas 2012 Prepared by: Kayser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; Ti; 3/28/2013 Page 4 of 17 TABLE 2 SCAG EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: Southern California Association of Governments Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables;T2;3/2812013 Page 5 of 17 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Arcadia 25,682 26,102 27,128 27,943 28,464 29,076 29,730 30,356 Duarte 6,638 6,667 6,873 7,037 7,142 7,265 7,397 7,522 El Monte 35,905 36,006 36,880 37,574 38,017 38,539 39,095 39,628 Irwindale 13,444 13,444 13,622 13,764 13,855 13,951 14,075 14,183 Monrovia 17,403 17,563 18,075 18,481 18,741 19,045 19,372 19,684 Pasadena 113,178 114,930 119,968 123,972 126,529 129,535 132,745 135,817 Sierra Madre 3,253 3,311 3,445 3,552 3,620 3,700 3,786 3,867 Temple City 6,462 6,534 6,779 6,973 7,098 7,244 7,400 7,549 Unincorporated San Gabriel Val. 97,927 98,834 102,581 105,559 107,461 109,697 112,084 114,369 Regional Market Total' 319,892 323,391 335,351 344,855 350,927 358,063 365,684 372,975 Los Angeles County 4,353,490 4,397,025 4,552,398 4,675,875 4,754,731 4,847,436 4,946,420 5,041,172 Change 2003 -2005 2005 -2010 2010 -2015 2015 -2020 2020 -2025 2025 -2030 2030 -2035 2003 -2035 Arcadia 1.6% 3.9% 3.0% 1.9% 2.2% 2.2% 2.1% 18.2% Duarte 0.4% 3.1% 2.4% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 1.7% 13.3% El Monte 0.3% 2.4% 1.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 10.4% InMndale 0.0% 1.3% 1.0% 0.7% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 5.5% Monrovia 0.9% 2.9% 2.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.7% 1.6% 13.1% Pasadena 1.5% 4.4% 3.3% 2.1% 2.4% 2.5% 2.3% 20.0% Sierra Madre 1.8% 4.0% 3.1% 1.9% 2.2% 2.3% 2.1% 18.9% Temple Oily 1.1% 3.7% 2.9% 1.8% 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 16.8% Unincorporated San Gabriel Val. 0.9% 3.8% 2.9% 1.8% 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 16.8% Regional Market Total 1.1% 3.7% 2.8% 1.8% 2.0% 2.1% 2.0% 16.6% Los Angeles County 1.0% 3.5% 2.7% 1.7% 1.9% 2.0% 1.9% 15.8% Source: Southern California Association of Governments Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables;T2;3/2812013 Page 5 of 17 TABLE 3 EMPLOYMENT & BUSINESSES ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA. CALIFORNIA Retail Trade Bus. 1 Mile Ring Emp. Po .[Bus. Emp./Bws. Bus. 3 Mile Ring Emp. Po .lSus. Emp.fBus, Bus. 5 Mile Ring Emp. Pop.lBus. Emp./Bus. Sue. LA County Emp. Pop.lBus. EmpJBus. 389 5,323 40 13.7 1,454 19,007 119 1311 3,372 36,832 121 10.9 85,527 892,103 115 10.4 Building Materials & Garden 9 27 1,719 3.0 95 523 1,824 5.5 190 1,664 2,154 8.8 3,962 39,938 2,489 10.1 General Merchandise Stores 11 829 1,407 75.4 45 2,147 3,851 47.7 101 3,397 4,052 33.6 2,255 74,894 4,373 33.1 FnodStores 36 418 430 11.6 136 3,050 1,274 22.4 354 5,440 1,156 15.4 8,773 107,761 1,124 123 Auto Dealers & Gas Stations 9 178 1,719 19.8 70 914 2,475 13.1 266 3,697 1,527 13.8 6,671 67,169 1,478 13.1 Apparel& Accessory Stores 92 1,159 168 12.6 161 1,515 1,076 9.4 282 2,212 1,451 7.81 9,796 61,207 1,007 6.2 Furniture/Home Furnishings 25 139 619 5.6 181 1,204 1,076 7.5 410 2,888 998 7.0 8,873 67,036 1,111 7.6 Eating &Drinking Places 101 2,078 153 20.6 410 7,200 423 17.6 925 13,114 442 14.2 23,111 328,287 427 14.2 Miscellaneous Retail Stores 106 495 145 4.7 376 2,454 461 6,5 842 4,420 486 5.2 22,086 126,011 446 5.7 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 170 1,218 91 7.2 828 5,696 209 8.1 1,638 12,152 250 7.4 41,433 378,440 238 9.1 Banks, Savings & Lending Inst. 51 588 3133 11.5 220 2,360 786 10.7 460 5,045 890 11.0 10,73D 137,436 919 12.6 Securities Brokers & Investors 17 55 910 3.2 99 364 1,750 3.7 186 657 2,200 3.5 4,182 33,092 2,358 7.9 Insurance Carriers & Agents 50 189 309 318 225 1,221 770 5.4 424 2,141 965 5.0 9,139 69,431 1,079 7.6 Real Estate 44 360 352 8.2 255 2.612 680 1D.2 522 4,119 704 7.9 16,448 123,114 599 7.5 Trusts, Holdings & Other Inv. 8 26 1,934 3.3 29 139 5,975 4.8 46 190 8,896 4.1 934 15,387 10,557 16.5 Services 815 9,116 19 11.2 3,292 2a,510 53 8.7 7,202 68,311 57 9.5 188,051 1,895,852 52 10.1 Hotels & Lodging 1 10 15,472 10.0 35 549 4,813 15.3 70 783 5,846 11.2 1,606 48,679 5,460 27.1 Personal Services 169 1,121 92 6.6 729 3,332 238 4,6 1,727 7,414 237 4.3 40,766 169,411 242 4.2 Business Services 145 2,580 107 17.8 766 7,140 226 9.3 1,567 11,692 258 7.4 43,782 367,417 225 8.4 Motion Picture & Amusement 43 2,038 380 47.4 170 2,843 1,019 16.7 342 4,432 1,197 13.0 11,965 150,200 824 12.6 Health Services 288 2,077 54 7.2 696 6,247 249 9.0 1,489 18,202 275 12.2 36,529 466,840 270 12.8 Legal Services 32 1117 484 3.3 120 493 1,444 4.1 323 1,201 1,267 3.7 13,633 84,696 723 6,2 Education Services 38 680 407 17.9 19D 4,388 912 23.1 422 16,109 970 382 8,140 377,359 1,211 46.4 Social Services 25 186 595 6.9 170 1,574 1,019 9.3 357 4,189 1,146 11.7 9,732 111,699 1,013 11.5 Mise, Membership Orgs, Other 73 323 212 4.4 415 1,944 418 4.7 885 4,289 462 4.8 21,698 119,431 454 5.6 Agriculture & Mining 19 81 967 5.1 94 476 1,843 5.1 Ise 1,111 2,088 5.7 3,917 28,345 2,517 7.2 Construction 54 229 287 4.2 425 2,788 408 &a 811 5,200 605 6,4 19,724 132,051 500 6.7 Manufacturing 38 447 407 11.6 309 5,319 561 17.2 787 12,957 520 16.5 2o,a36 431,724 473 20.7 Trans., Comm. & Pub. Iltil. 41 150 377 3.7 192 1,666 902 8.7 538 4,181 761 7.8 15,113 188,739 652 12.5 Wholesale Trade 66 261 234 4.0 299 1,730 580 5.8 gas 5,379 452 5.9 23,674 230,603 417 9.7 Public Administration t8 321 880 17.8 47 1,548 3,687 32.9 153 4,516 2,675 29.5 3,786 194,988 2,618 51.8 Total 1,607 17,146 10 10.71 6,940 67,740 25 9.81 15,602 150,639 26 9,7 402,041 4,372,845 25 10.8 Claritas Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Ina Filename: Arcadia Tables; T3; 3128/2013 Page 6 of 17 TABLE 4 SHARE OF TOTAL BUSINESSES & EMPLOYMENT ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: Ciaritas; Keyser Marston Associates Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T4-,3/2812013 Page 7 of 17 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring LA County Businesses Employees Businesses Employees Businesses Employees Businesses Employees Retail Trade 24.2% 31.0% 21.0% 28.1% 21.6% 24.50/6 .21.3% 20.4% Building Materials & Garden 0.6% 0.2°% 1.4% 0.8% 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% General Merchandise Stores 0.7% 4.8% 0.6% 3.2% 0.6% 2.3% 03% 1.7% Food Stares 2.2°% 2.4°% 2.0°% 4.5% 2.3% 3.6% 2.2% 2.5% Auto Dealers & Gas Stations 0.6°% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3°% 1.7% 2.5% 1.7% 2.0°% Apparel & Accessory Stores 5.7% 6.8°% 2.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 2.4% 1.4% Furniture/Home Furnishings 1.6% 0.8% 2.3°% 1.8% 2.6% 1.9% 2.2% 1.5% Ealing & Drinking Places 6.3% 12.1% 5.9% 10.6% 5.9% 8.7% 5.7% 7.5% Miscellaneous Retail Stores 6.6% 2.9°% 5.4% 3.6% 5.4% 2.9°% 5.5°% 2.9% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 10.60/0 7.1°% 11.9°% 9.9°% 10.S% 8.1% 10.3% 8.7°% Banks, Savings & Lending Inst. 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.5°% 2.9% 3.3% 2.7% 3.1% Securities Brokers & Investors 1.1% 0.3% 1.4% 0.5% 1.2% 0.4% 1.0% 0.8% Insurance Carriers &Agents 3.1% 1.1% 3.2°% 1.8% 2.7% 1.4% 2.3% 1.6°% Real Estate 2.7% 2.1% 3.7% 3.9°% 3.3% 2.7% 4.1% 2.8% Trusts, Holdings & Other Inv. 0.5% 0.2% 0.4°% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2% 0.4°% Services 50.7°% 53.2°% 47.4°/6 42.1°% 46.2% 45.3% 46.6% 43.4°% Hotels & Lodging 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 1.1% Personal Services 10.5% 6.5% 10.5% 4.9% 11.1% 4.9% 10.1% 3.9% Business Services 9.0°% 15.0% 11.0% 10.5% 10.2% 7.8% 10.9% 8.4% Motion Picture & Amusement 2.7% 11.9% 2.4% 4.2°% 2.2°% 2.9% 3.0% 3.4°% Health Services 17.9% 12.1% 10.0% 9.2% 9.5% 12.1°% 10.9% 8.4% Legal Services 2.0% 0.6% 1.7% 03% 2.1% 0.8% 3.0% 3.4% Education Services 2.4°% 4.0% 2.7% 6.5% 2.7°% 10.7% 9.1% 10.7% Social Services 1.6% 1 .0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.3% 2.8% 2.4°% 2.6°% Misc, Membership Orgs, Other 4.5°% 1.9% 6.0°% 2.9°% 5.7% 2.8% 5.4°% 2.7°% Agriculture & Mining 1.0% 0.56/6 1.4% 0.7°% 1.3°% 0.76% 1.0°% 0.6% Construction 3.4% 1.3% 6.1% 4.1°% 5.2% 3.5% 4.9% 3.0% Manufacturing 2.4% 2.6% 4.56% 7.96/6 5.0% 8.6% 5.2% 9.9°% Trans., Comm. & Pub. Util. 2.6% 0.9% 2.8% 2.56/6 3.46/6 2.86/6 3.8% 4.3°% Wholesale Trade 4.1% 1.5% 4.3% 1$% 5.8°% 3.66/6 5.9% 5.3°% Government 1.1% 1.9°% 0.7°% 2.3°% 1.0% 3.0% 0.96/6 4.6% Total Businesses 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0°% 100.0% Source: Ciaritas; Keyser Marston Associates Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T4-,3/2812013 Page 7 of 17 TABLE 5 HEALTH RELATED BUSINESSES & EMPLOYMENT ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: Clarifies Prepared by. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Arcadia Tables;T5;312812013 Page 8 of 17 1 Mils Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring LA County Bus. Emp, Pop. /Bus. Emp.[Bus. Bus. Emp, PoRiBus. EmpJBus. Bus. Emp. PopJBUs. EmpJBus. Bus, Emp. PopJBus. EmpJBus. Office of Doctors of Medicine 297 1,026 52 3.5 593 2,257 292 3.8 1,397 5,143 293 3.7 41,056 135,427 240 3.3 Office ofOenGsts 55 285 281 5.2 175 916 990 5.2 356 1,987 1,150 5.6 6,935 42,533 1,422 6.1 Office of Osteopathic Physicians 2 5 7,736 2.5 4 11 43,319 2.8 6 17 88,204 2,8 145 514 68,002 3.5 Office of Other Health Practitioners 26 100 595 3,8 69 274 2,511 4.0 154 540 2,657 3.5 4,367 14,354 2,258 3.3 ChiropractorsOfficeslClinics 9 41 1,719 4.6 30 104 5,776 3,5 68 233 6,018 3.4 1,764 6,121 5,590 3.5 Optometrists Offices/Clinics 9 32 1,719 16 24 133 7,220 5.5 50 243 8,184 4.9 1,201 6,736 B,210 5,6 Podiatrists Offices/Clinics 5 27 3,094 5.4 8 37 21,660 4.6 16 64 25,577 4.0 356 1,394 27,698 3.9 Other Health Practitioners 3 0 5,157 NA 7 0 24,754 0.0 20 0 20,461 0.0 1,046 103 9,427 0.1 Nursing & Personal Care Facilities 5 187 3,094 37.4 26 1,312 6,664 50.5 64 3,577 6,394 55.9 1,092 53,511 9,030 49.0 Hospitals 5 123 3,094 24.6 15 522 11,552 34.8 38 4,473 10,769 117.7 735 148,196 13,415 201.6 Medical & Dental Laboratories 16 83 967 5.2 30 207 5,776 6.9 62 406 6,600 6.5 1,377 11,355 7,161 8.2 Home Health Care Services 9 94 1,719 10.4 28 373 6,188 13.3 61 780 6,709 12,8 1,093 16,973 9,021 15.5 Special Outpatient Facilities 3 94 5,157 31.3 15 251 11,552 16.7 27 369 15,156 13.7 B55 17,207 11,533 20.1 Total 444 2,097 35 4.7 1,024 6,397 169 6.21 2,319 17,832 176 7.7 62,022 454,424 159 7,3 Source: Clarifies Prepared by. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Arcadia Tables;T5;312812013 Page 8 of 17 TABLE 6 HEALTH RELATED BUSINESS PRODUCTIVITY ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Source: Claritas Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Arcadia Tables;T6;3128 /2013 Page 9 of 17 1 Mile Ring 3 Mile Ring 5 Mile Ring LA County Sales! Sales! Sales/ Sales/ Sales Business Sales Business Sales Business Sales Business ($000x) ($0005) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) ($000s) Office of Doctors of Medicine $124,000 $418 $271,500 $458 $614,700 $440 $16,126,100 $393 Office of Dentists $20,100 $365 $64,000 $366 $138,800 $390 $2,959,600 $426 Office of Osteopathic Physicians $300 $150 $700 $175 $1,100 $183 $34,300 $237 Office of Other Health Practitioners $6,300 $242 $16,600 $241 $33,300 $216 $889,000 $204 Chiropractors Offices/Clinics $2,700 $300 $6,900 $230 $15,500 $228 $407,300 $231 Optometrists Officss/Ctinics $1,800 $200 $7,200 $300 $93,600 $272 $383,800 $320 Podiatrists OffioeslClinics $1,800 $360 $2,500 $313 $4,200 $263 $93,100 $262 Other Health Practitioners $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,800 $5 Nursing & Personal Care Facilities $7,100 $1,420 $50,900 $1,927 $135,400 $2,131 $2,043,400 $1,871 Hospitals $12,100 $2,420 $44,300 $2,953 $262,000 $6,895 $12,443,600 $16,930 Medial & Dental Laboratories $5,900 $369 $15,000 $500 $29,700 $479 $839,200 $609 Home Health Care Services $9,000 $1,000 $35,600 $1,271 $74,300 $1,218 $1,612,400 $1,475 Special Outpatient Facilities $10,000 $3,333 $26,600 $9,773 $39,000 $1,444 $1,825,400 $2,135 Total $291,900 $453 $541,000 $528 $1,362,600 $588 $39,654,000 $639 Source: Claritas Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Arcadia Tables;T6;3128 /2013 Page 9 of 17 TABLE 7 LOS ANGELES BASIN MARKET PERFORMANCE ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) 1 All announced space, including projects without entitlement or funding. (4) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Colliers International Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T7; 3/28/2013 Page 10 of 17 Average Asking Square Feet Square Feet Vacancy Net Absorption 2 Under Planned Rent 4 Quarter Buildings (Total lnventory) Vacant' Rate' Year -to -date Construction Square Feet (Class A) 4th Quarter 2011 3,135 302,633,100 56,289,757 18.6% 1,711,300 1,707,600 15,434,600 $2.27 1 st Quarter 2012 3,130 302,633,100 56,592,390 18.7% (197,000) 1,900,500 15,434,600 $2.26 2nd Quarter 2012 3,128 302,537,100 55,364,289 18.3% 1,005,500 2,013,400 15,832,600 $2.26 3rd Quarter 2012 3,128 302,537,100 54,759,215 18.1% 1,323,000 2,033,600 16,124,700 $2.26 4th Quarter 2012 3,129 302,955,600 54,229,052 17.9% 2,226,600 1,823,200 15,674,200 $2.27 (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) 1 All announced space, including projects without entitlement or funding. (4) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Colliers International Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T7; 3/28/2013 Page 10 of 17 TABLE 8 4th QUARTER 2012 OFFICE MARKET - LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) 1 All announced space, including projects without entitlement or funding. (4) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Coiliers International, 4th Quarter 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T8; 3!26!2013 Page 11 of 17 Average Asking Square Feet Square Feet Vacancy Net Absorption 2 Under Planned Rent Submarket Buildings _ ffotal Inventory) Vacant' Rate' Year -to -date Construction Square Feet (Class A) San Gabriel Valley 144 10,037,000 1,495,513 14.9% (147,600) - 1,302,300 $1.89 Central Los Angeles 182 45,573,800 8,795,743 19.3% (562,700) 229,500 1,342,400 $2.44 West Los Angeles 424 56,420,800 8,970,907 15.9% 417,000 760,200 1,732,000 $3.31 Td Cities 192 22,849,100 3,655,856 16.0% 352,400 41,200 605,000 $2.64 San Fernando Valley 438 35,416,700 6,941,673 19.6% 311,700 220,600 1,348,000 $2.16 South Bay 276 30,554,500 6,508,109 21.3% 230,900 191,700 2,143,000 $1.98 Market Total 1,656 200,851,900 36,367,801 18.1% 601,700 1,443,200 8,472,700 $2.50 (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) 1 All announced space, including projects without entitlement or funding. (4) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Coiliers International, 4th Quarter 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T8; 3!26!2013 Page 11 of 17 TABLE 9 4th QUARTER 2012 OFFICE MARKET - LOS ANGELES BASIN ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Cushman & Wakefield Marketbeat 4th Quarter 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; 3/28/2013 Page 12 of 17 Average Asking Average Asking Square Feet Square Feet Vacancy Net Absorption 2 Construction Rent 3 Rent 3 Submarket (Total Inventory) Vacant' Rate' (Year -to -date) Completions All Prop. (Class A) San Gabriel Valley 12,066,739 2,099,613 17.4% (135,840) 156,666 $1.99 $2.34 Los Angeles Central 46,729,938 9,159,068 19.6% (582,051) - $2.47 $2.76 Los Angeles West 51,018,596 8,111,957 15.9% (326,403) 414,994 $3.27 $3.46 Los Angeles North 30,741,984 5,533,557 18.0% 489,658 34,452 $2.02 $2.24 Los Angeles South 30,434,766 6,999,996 23.0% (234,115) - $2.02 $2.29 Tri Cities 23,187,037 3,802,674 16.4% 668,802 - $2.66 $2.83 Market Total 194,179,060 35,706,865 18.4% (119,949) 606,112 $2.51 $2.80 (1) Includes vacant space which is available for direct lease and sublease. (2) Calculation based on total vacancy. (3) Weighted by available direct lease space. PSF Per Month. Full Service Gross (FSG). Source: Cushman & Wakefield Marketbeat 4th Quarter 2012 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; 3/28/2013 Page 12 of 17 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 Office $1.85 FSG NA 1,376 NA 2 37 E. Huntington Arcadia Office $2.00 FSG 6,000 400 7% 3 310 Foothill Arcadia Office $1.59 MG 4,752 3,864 81% 4 124 N. First Arcadia Office $1.65 FSG 3,000 3,000 100% 5 612 W. Duarte Arcadia Medical $2.85 MG 57,653 1,000 3% $2.90 MG 848 6 4115 E. Live Oak Arcadia Office $1.85 MG 7,046 523 7% 7 210 N. 1st Arcadia Office $1.50 MG 15,000 3,200 21% 8 50 E. Foothill Arcadia Office $1.95 FSG 18,173 2,459 14% 9 150 N. Santa Anita Arcadia Office $2.05 FSG 81,368 1,355 2% 10 149 E. Joseph Arcadia Office $1.00 MG 4,016 1,245 31% 11 44 E. Foothill Arcadia Office $1.75 MG 5,442 1,550 28% 12 72 W. Live Oak Arcadia Office $1.44 MG 2,658 763 29% 13 65 N. 1st Arcadia Medical $2.00 MG 17,127 663 4% 14 301 E. Foothill Arcadia Office $2.15 FSG 24,524 1,270 5% 15 715 S. First Arcadia Medical $1.90 FSG 7,650 2,500 33% 16 225 Santa Clara Arcadia Office $1.90 FSG 21,597 21,547 100% 17 618 Michilinda Arcadia Office $2.00 FSG 240,000 20,007 46% $2.05 FSG 89,356 18 610 N. Santa Anita Arcadia Office $1.40 FSG 11,800 5,900 50% 19 665 W. Naomi Arcadia Medical $2.50 FSG 11,000 3,800 35% 20 20 Foothill Arcadia Office $2.00 FSG 25,000 6,788 27% 21 411 E. Huntington Arcadia Office $2.10 NNN 73,836 1,986 6% $1.80 MG 2,149 22 7 W. Foothill Arcadia Office $2.25 NNN 6,000 6,000 100% 23 900 S, First Arcadia Medical $2.45 MG 10,000 1,801 18% 24 11 E. Huntington Arcadia Medical $1.58 MG 3,800 3,800 100% 25 1035 W. Huntington Arcadia Medical $1.80 MG 2,475 1,000 40% 26 301 Huntington Arcadia Medical $2.30 NNN 86,762 8,423 10% Lease Rate Range Lease Rate Source: LoopNet.com ; Showcase.com 2013; NAI Capital Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename: Arcadia Tables; T10; 3/28/2013 $1.00 - $2.90 $1.99 Page 13 of 17 TABLE 11 MARKET AREA MEDICAL OFFICE LEAST= RATE COMPARABLES (5 MILES) ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Asking Building No. Address City Property Type Rate Type Size SF Available Vacancy 1 65 N. 1 at Arcadia Medical $2.00 MG 17,127 663 4% 2 612 W. Duarte Arcadia Medical $2.85 MG 57,653 1,000 3% $2.90 MG 848 3 665 W. Naomi Arcadia Medical $2.50 FSG 11,000 3,800 35% 4 301 Huntington Arcadia Medical $2.30 NNN 86,762 8,423 10% 23 900 S. First Arcadia Medical $2.45 MG 10,000 1,801 18% 16 715 S. First Arcadia Medical $1.90 FSG 7,650 2,500 33% 24 11 E. Huntington Arcadia Medical $1.58 MG 3,800 3,800 100% 25 1035 W. Huntington Arcadia Medical $1.80 MG 2,475 1,000 40% 5 925 W. Foothill Monrovia Medical $1.65 NNN 6,460 6,460 100% 6 80 Montecito Sierra Madre Medical $1.63 MG 600 600 100% 7 9676 Las Tunas Temple City Medical $1.65 MG 3,865 2,100 54% 8 5546 Rosemead Temple City Medical $1.40 NNN 13,500 1,202 16% $1.80 1,003 9 4448 Santa Anita El Monte Medical $1.54 FSG 1,953 1,953 100% 10 931 Buena Vista Duarte Medical $1.60 FSG 52,424 17,038 33% 11 4639 Peck El Monte Medical $0.98 MG 3,432 1,432 42% 12 819 Buena Vista Duarte Medical $2.30 MG 22,392 10,000 45% 13 416 W. Las Tunas San Gabriel Medical $2.50 MG 25,000 1,130 5% 14 420 W. Las Tunas San Gabriel Medical $2.40 NNN 7,302 7,302 100% 15 207 S. Santa Anita San Gabriel Medical $2.95 FSG 58,017 7,702 13% 17 3131 Santa Anita El Monte Medical $0.80 NNN 30,496 11,800 39% Lease Rate Range $0.80 - $2.95 22.2% Vacant Weighted Average Lease Rate $1.91 Source; LoopNet.com; Showcase.com; NAI Capital Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc, Filename: Arcadia Tables; T11; 312$12013 Page 14 of 17 TABLE 12 MEDICAL & OFFICE DEVELOPMENT MARKET AREA INVENTORY (.5 MILES) ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Inventory Inventory Median Inventory/ Hospital' Location Beds Count Sa. Feet Year Built Bed Methodist Hospital of Southern California2 Arcadia 581 Medical Buildings3 15 256,870 1961 442 Office Buildings3 62 370,983 1964 639 Total 77 627,853 1962 1,081 Glendale Memorial Hospital Glendale 334 Medical Buildings3 8 203,499 1956 609 Office Buildings3 28 190.035 1960 569 Total 36 393,534 1960 1,178 Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center Pomona 453 Medical Buildings3 19 124,888 1967 276 Office Buildings3 40 209.038 1961 461 Total 59 333,926 1961 737 Huntington Memorial Hospital Pasadena 626 Medicaf Buildings3 10 840,644 1957 1,343 Office Buildings3 47 940.483 1954 1.502 Total 57 1,781,127 1954 2,845 Citrus Valley Medical Center West Covina 325 Medical Buildings3 5 106,556 1980 328 Office Buildings3 25 423320 1974 1.303 Total 30 529,876 1979 1,630 Source: Real Quest, City of Arcadia, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. San Gabriel Valley Hospitals over 300 beds, based on data provided by the City. 2 Given development patterns near the hospital, a one -mile market area was utilized. 3 Based on Assessor's building description. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Filename:Arcadia Tables;T12;3/28/2013 Page 16 of 17 TABLE 13 POTENTIAL OFFICE DEMAND WITHIN A THREE MILE RADIUS ARCADIA MEDICAL OFFICE OVERVIEW ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 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 -- - - - - -- Estimated Office Demand------- - 2012 2017 2022 2027 Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Employment 6,696 7,036 7,393 7,768 Change 340 357 375 Office Employment Percentage 100% 100% 100% Square Feet/Employee 220 220 220 Total Square Footage 74,700 78,500 82,500 Services Employment 28,510 31,534 34,878 38,578 Change 3,024 3,345 3,699 Office Employment Percentage 30% 30% 30% Square Feet/Employee 220 220 220 Total Square Footage 199,600 220,700 244,200 Trans., Comm. & Pub. Util. Employment 1,666 1,753 1,844 1,941 Change 87 91 96 Office Employment Percentage 5% 5% 5% Square Feet/Employee 220 220 220 Total Square Footage 1,000 1,000 1,100 Total Employment 36,872 40,323 44,116 48,286 Change 3,451 3,793 4,171 Total Square Footage 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 Through 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; 312812013 Page 17 of 17 Santa Anit a o= Co _ PROPOSED REVISION TO ZONING MAP TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72193 IN TIE CITY OF ARCAIXA, COUNTY OF Los ANMB STATE OF CALIFORNIA WN0 A SUBDINSION OF A PORTION OF LOT 1 a S OF TRACT 940, N THE CITY OF ARCADL46 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED N BOOK 17 PAGE 13 OF MAPS, N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. VICINITY MAP WE 5-1 QAT®11) IME C-0 a H[ M WM) WrA AW N0. W U PM6Q2 1 ffxw ICI W FRIF. FARM 3 AEA W PA1m8 1311AW 94 FT. (351.74 AMM TOTAL \ MOM MPOSA: BY WAkFIY MER PM TO SEEPf MAIL \\ APIh 5775-01 -0 am .\ SPECIAL NOTES 1HE PRO,ECT 511E IS NOT N A POTENTIAL NAIAROOLIS AREA \ UTIUTY SEWACES ' \ Nk - CITY W A[" �\ SEWR - CdMIY W IDS ANSBES SAINAl1011 mIRICT CAi - SQTNEIN CAA7am w CO. OWN= - Swum G1l[a[EA Imm Cm \ 1EL94 E - ART SUM - Ai'JAA tWO SOM MW •� \\ FEE - QTY W NOW F[E OFP NNo f • \ PMU - CM W AI" PMa DEPARBFIIT FJ r� LLA-1 AM mmlL—ttL'fL•w.! �iJL AlIIIIIIfAt' st.•7L� *:'� [c;!': 1�41.'At iF4L�F:�:'1LltiRL! \ AV R � ANTA LAND HOLDNA LLC nE HALE Cf VORAW N 3 S MYRE METRE, AM A mavvm G4 mots 1E3:05- MO-493 eREPAam RY! HANG .RMIP PE Ely. ASSOCIATE; NR 11419 FAIL z ROAD, WT A AA 2G FAIL U0 -20-J O REVISIONS DATE NO SQ N-T's , i BI.45 OF 1EAPMNQ EENINO ARE BASED ON THE C£HTERLDE OF FRNTNOTON mw - -- BEND NORTH J77b'4T EASE - - - -- \ `' ' , 1 , l WT /ATT 5 drm EMBT MAP ---- - - - - -- FTa n V Z — rn C M W I— Q N V = < v cl) & ppp V N G7 Q N V[ �Q zo- w Lu Q / Z Z QD a M Z U � o Lm C) Pn C\I Q D 01/09/13 Scale 1• . Zpp Ikar�Tl � 'lob 12- ?3%-002 Shed 1 OF 2 1 `I aaA. a' lOr 5 ,M9.9rT -�A i0,, ; 3 •\ a �� 1 �- I 1 1 I 11 , / 1 f , ' 1 WT /ATT 5 drm EMBT MAP ---- - - - - -- FTa n V Z — rn C M W I— Q N V = < v cl) & ppp V N G7 Q N V[ �Q zo- w Lu Q / Z Z QD a M Z U � o Lm C) Pn C\I Q D 01/09/13 Scale 1• . Zpp Ikar�Tl � 'lob 12- ?3%-002 Shed 1 OF 2 SWTA AMU LAID NMDA= LGC C r4E MARE CCRP MI M J S MM AMM& SATE A, AAO'N0144, Cl 91016 MID$- ,Y36 -4u3 HARK Jam PE ES1. AS9MIM NG Ti(0D TAWOra18 RQ4D, 1NT A A♦ AGM FAX UP -20�M EN100I ARE BASED ON nE CENTERLINE OF HLINTNOTON DRIVE EN0 NOR1N J77D•47* EAST. UTLITY SERMCES: MTBR - C" OF Allum aw - O W OF LOS NOW SWTATMN D6RILT CAS - SWIFEAI CAIFT1r1A CAS O0. ELECNOIY - 3w mm CNF=m Eom C0. 1EL@HOIE - AT&T Iii - QIY OF AW" PE DIPARif M ME - CIT OF ARGJIOIA M= DRPMMW IIML 2WC S-1 PER" WE 0-0 s H0 01OP'M) NO, OF DL PAW73.4 2 NO OF PIMP. PAMSB 3 AREA OF PALM& IM 1414J,N3 E FT. (X01.74 A00 END= IMMO1: K WAVY S1 FrM TO SSW WALL N% 5713 -OW- 021 ! 025 SPECIAL NOIEE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 72193 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SLIMMSI N OF A PORTION OF LOT 1 & 5 OF TRACT M N Tw CITY OF ARCADIA` COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIF'ORMA, AS PER MAP RECORDED N BOOK 17 PACE 13 OF MAPS, N THE OFFICE OF T1E COUNTY RECORDER OF SAO COUNTY. EASEW MM IX IS• WE SRIi1 mm EApeff PER NST. Na 85- 41011011 k M- IJYit2E. ® EX 10'&W PCIE EAMOff REDWROED N E10CT 24WJ PACE 446 nR SAY DATA ■LS FIIOI�D BY 01N■TL PAEPARFD BY CANYON COYS47NG ESL AS MIE NR AMIAES NO UUMM LR REMNSSATY FOR TW ACMRACY OF DE N.TWDX BY ODERS THE PROJECT 511E 15 NOT N A POTBMAL HAZARDM AREA – H377e477T — ..unanl ur / �7y NOT A PART OF W-q US 5!/EtOGHSQ4 APN 5775 -001 -025 R- 30.00• L- 41.55' A-7921'12' N8538'OD'W use' N3T2847 E POR. OF LOT 5 TM 949117 -13 APN 5775 -001 -021 1 11, 790, 406 SQ. FT. (270.67 ACRES) INTERNAL ROADWAY Ii �uuumurrunurnur■■ ■ ■1' 2 REVISIONS �� DATE NO f l.T. Sw V VICINITY MAP 7 rn mm o (4.25 ACRES) o 11111111111111 Ill 11111111 lu ■Ai — - -- i — — 4— — — — HUN TING TON DRI VE AM 5775- 001 -025 V= �2 W 4 as r4 V � a O � " Q 9� U N ,, Lu m W M Z Z p p T� ° � Q M Z U ::D ::D c = Q ova U 00 [If 1-3 CV Q Date 01/09/13 Scale 1' - %, Gleam J°b ,2_237-002 s�eet 2 Cf 2 [kly;Z:= Fri 7 b :1 J i; a� L �j� 3 j• � ic:Sr_TMT�� THE PROJECT 511E 15 NOT N A POTBMAL HAZARDM AREA – H377e477T — ..unanl ur / �7y NOT A PART OF W-q US 5!/EtOGHSQ4 APN 5775 -001 -025 R- 30.00• L- 41.55' A-7921'12' N8538'OD'W use' N3T2847 E POR. OF LOT 5 TM 949117 -13 APN 5775 -001 -021 1 11, 790, 406 SQ. FT. (270.67 ACRES) INTERNAL ROADWAY Ii �uuumurrunurnur■■ ■ ■1' 2 REVISIONS �� DATE NO f l.T. Sw V VICINITY MAP 7 rn mm o (4.25 ACRES) o 11111111111111 Ill 11111111 lu ■Ai — - -- i — — 4— — — — HUN TING TON DRI VE AM 5775- 001 -025 V= �2 W 4 as r4 V � a O � " Q 9� U N ,, Lu m W M Z Z p p T� ° � Q M Z U ::D ::D c = Q ova U 00 [If 1-3 CV Q Date 01/09/13 Scale 1' - %, Gleam J°b ,2_237-002 s�eet 2 Cf 2 tJ ,: (_ �_" =�ili i "` S i , t.s ",_ .j a .. , .1 .a t•�: r I . ,. i ,�'��'� ♦ '• f = � ^f r� .r � ..I f j� � E ; t � ~'r. r � 1 � ., .' I', -�' - �'`,, —,'' �T'• g i•'- r r��r �i-�. � - f_.L F r, c •• I r Nil, low, NOW gamwwl r I t � I '_. f •� � Er .� � _ �m .s m ,� A ,q , a r.`N ±�: �,cj� r - f +1 i i 3 .+1 fat A: n �r* .Cj�'jr: � -"*' � � r � w, • — " I [ _: _ i' � 41 - s en ,,•�, � r„,, s71��ii��,r - �.' .. .+r • r • ' _ _. _ `, I ! I.7 q A � 5 .•.b !d A 5 9 �,j19�•� i' , • � g m � ��' ,. � � [?..• �'j. . 1 a }�s"`''' • [5` ! 1 _ •!�' ! 3i' ^M..�:r -li �a' '2 ��r ,_' -lf �;j' � •r•. �7a- :s ;,; ,_ s ' , ''' � _ ; I • '�' � _ '�, ' awl - !', as , / /fl��/ ''' /�� /, ��� _ ' ,I 1 ! h p ci � � y •� s /����i�,:: ?,:: li' ��.,.'• � r� % / /l��i_ -.��=� _ n •r- t J" / 1. !i //1 / ! r/ a r / ri n� r� / /�% r f/i � � E . s •� � c • r '! /r /��,. �jri ////. .:r �.r /;� /n /� /�f i j% f 1l r��f ' }� r7.,�. ", • "j r � /�n �/ � lr/ r �' ��`i /r' /�� `'r /l f'� J� %�f r, h at r A. ° t • •: N fr�� !!/ / / r�i' �� /l r � r r/ l ' /,r � �..' � �%'. :a �^ •.YA r,.. A^ • .�' f � % ��� „h' // /�� /� / „_ . �!/ � /�i %r%, �. /r/ -, i�, /` /,r �/ i � / % %/r r it �� � • . ; f r y /f /� r ,V //' /r l - // / � r �. . � �yi� rrJ r rfi // v e -`. ». '” �.. • 45 "" r1 ,r„i,. / /l / /�i��I �R rtyr�/ i!flf' "•i- / / / % /S % /,7.5"f',� 11r�ijr -/ _ml i`.� /,. .rim /! �.�� �'�•�� "i �''• :' /'! /� ': j! /r� "lid ai• 0.3..:: '� / ' / /f� /rr /Fr /'`if��� /.� /f / ' li. I% •l •' , T 101 11 r J j/ / � / �f �• Jj it a. A tr � � t r,r. .iy .. �gl7lj� � 4s: . • c Q � • =ry.. �'li � M._g .iE '� �.r. li �; 1 , _ `' EIi �^� °' w- 1F " n - (. •�'a"' it I^ Y r. ` r�. s'tl vY^'r �,} f :_-. • —^ �f ,• '••i.^... ��n �^ .i •�f,---�I',�I�'�I� 1, a �- ..c .-.rr ..." i`' 44er (�.^ I J'_ •'�c r+� +' iTI -_ Fi 1 ui `4 tr-'_' •� . �• I i ` TI t_ _`_ 6r • is e nl� s ¢' - - -� � n n 1 r I.r IJ�J:C auES.•anEl,o PfEOJEC UIPOII61ATI011 -�'� � - - ilHa SCtUCCGJ — -- �OWI1EASHIP UP 2B51'!. KI1lffifFGTUlI OR. AFiChf73A, CA• I 5CAI E 1'= 200• I RADIUS MAP .Manaft. Oansftj Phelps [phijips May 7, 2013 BY HAND DELIVERY Mayor Mickey Segal` and City Qpuncjl :City of Arcadia Ii.O. Box 600-21 Arcadia, CA 9,10660-21 611"i Manaft .,. Phelps & Phillipsi LLP Dire4plal, (714) -,2534 , 371 E -mail: 8lVlatsfiar@(.nangttC6:M Re: Agenda* j.(a);:. Specific ,Platt No. sp 13-01, Tentative ftr6el' map NO. T1% 13-01,Gmeral-Plan Amendment I Na. GPA 13-01, Zone Change. No. W. 13A1, and .Architectural :D,e§J9n Re-view N%ADF,115-04 Mayor Segal and Honorable Councilmembers, Manatt, ' Phelps & Phillips LLP (','ManaW) represents - Windrose Santa Anita Properties and Frauenshuh Health'Care Real Estate Solutions, LL-C (collectively "Windrose!) Windrose owns the mcdiOal office building located at 30L W. Huntingtori. Drive ( "Windrose, Site'), immediately adjacent to the site, that is` the s0i ect of. Agenda. 1. (a),at. 28'9 W.. Huntington Drive C'Prqjectiffite'j These comments are, submitted,onbehalf of Windrose, which has serious concerns about the potential environmental impacts of- the .,proj oc t contemplated by Agenda. Item.. f(A) (` -Project," ect .1 To begin, the City Council should be aware that this letter is not the first time that Windrow has raised cpneerns regarding the Project, Windrow :convened separate meetings with representatives i from the City's elopmenT,Servipes Department,. the,Lo Angeles, Turf Club, and -Hale Medical Center on April 29, 2013 . to discuss parking adeqpacy on the Project Site and. the effect. of the Project on. the windrose Sitd. hi addition, Windrosels counsel, Jason . Thomas,, and the City Attorney have engaged in �seve . rat conversation . regarding the Project in recent days. Windrose decYdecl to submit this letter because those exchanges failed: to cWminate-in a resolution of Windrose?soutstanding concerns, This letter will set forth the results afour careful, review of theTroject's IniijalStudy and MitigatbdNegati,vr, Declaration .("IS/:MM' which uncovered 'serious con,cerns . about its legal adequacy. In shm, we believe that jj quac. 'je city -mast prepare afiEnWroniftental ImpaciReport rELR'} to evaluate the Project .because there 0:4fair argument thatheProject may have a signOcant effect. on the environment.. The - California Environmental Qualify Act C 'QEQA). provides , very low threshold f6f prepan . ng an EIR in lieu "of a negative, declaration or mitigated negative declaration. (See, e.g., Santa Teresa Citizen Action Gt6up, v.Citv:of San Jose (2003) 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor, Oosta Mesa, :.California 9262&1'924. Tdleptpne: 714 .3 . 71.2500 Fax, 714271.2550: Albany I LosAngei . 6s I . N . ew:York I (Dr8nge-Counly I Polo Alto I 80dramento [ Sari Fran Cisco manaft manaitt I phelpsl philflpiq Mayor Mickey Segal and, City Council May 7, 2011 Page,2 114; Cgl.AppAth 689.) AS get fbith in. the ."CEQA Guidelines ". (14 dal. Code of Begs. §§ 15000= 1:5387): "if a lead agency is presented with,a fair argument that.a.project maybave a significant ea %pt,on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR even though. it may also "be prosQnted with other substantial: evidbace; that the project will not have a significant CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f).; No Oil, Inc. v. QV of Los Angeles (1974) . 13- CaOd.6& (1974 Emphasis added.) Put another way, negative declarations RM appropriate only when there is no evidence in the initial study or! the record before the lead agency that a project or any of its aspects may have a significant etvirotinontalIMP act. (See MOA Guidelines §4 15063 (b), 15064(0.), Abuse of discretion is established where them issubstantial. evidence supporting a fainargument that a projec.t will significantly im.pact the environment and the lead agency refuses to require preparation. of an. BIR.. (Atgh�:Hetitage Assn. v. QQun of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal'' 109 . 5,1109.1 Twa defl itims are key to. undo ni 1 rstanding the fair argument! standard "sign cant' environmental impact": and may, A "Signiflicant.onvironniontal .. act"; isdefined a& "a substan, tial,,,.or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the.p4y4ogl conditions within the area affected by the project," (CEQA. Guidelines' § 15382.) The ward "may"has been detennined to wew:that there is;a "reasonable possibility? of A.signifidant environmental impact, (No Oil, inc y ,.City of Los. Ang Im.syPra, fn. 16.) 4S se(Arh bila tkere is treasonable` possibility that the Ppojoct,will have a substantial; orpowittially substanti&4 iadverserhange. in one or more of the following physical conditions, and therefore warrantspreporatiol; of an EIR. 1. .& A68thedes 4 AO :Project May hppact: a&enie Vista = Ae IS/MND concludes that "the proposed, project would result . in no.itpact to scenicresources and Views. (T.S/M-ND, p. I We disagree. According to the, ISYMND, "[tjhe San Gabriel Mountains to the distant north are the most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the:subjed site?' The City. Council's. staff ropor 't.intludes two hotogr ohs (Photos I and 2).de. p icting existing Views df the Project Site. from the ad' public jj&pf way -(z e., . . . . .... , J adjacent Jacent , Ac Huntington Drive.) These photos clearly -show that, todayi there are .Virtually unobstracted: views bf the San Gabriel Moinitains from Huntington Pnivo. At 70,09.6 square feet in size ,anti kur stones (63'y'6 „) ') in height to would clearly obstruct this gemic view and create the .mans. MeMft I phelp,51 philhOs .Mayor Mickey Segal and jCity Counc I i May 7', 2013' Page 3 potential. for a significant aesthetic impact acttbAtmustb.eeVaIUatedJnan BIR. I ": The -rroJ,eCT InClUaf-sa pedestrian b.ncLge over Huai Drive connecting. the proposed building with the Methodi4Hospital' property at .300W. Hun ntington Drive; The bridge would be 15"'M' height while the associated elevator tower Would be appibxirnately;28'm, h6iaht� A.mazinglythe: 'potential aesffietic.i'mpactof-thebti4ga�.and associated tt)wt-,r;w& ignored, altogether in thP,18NNU Aesthetips.arialysis. This violates well-settled C,EQA,Drecedent requiring-that the entire project subject to appre al be: evaluated for potential environmental: impacts. (See: City of Sant ce Y. f'ounty of. .S..an Diego (19819) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438.) Itis also : contrary to the IS/NM's own statement thatits. analysis "Must take account ofthc. who.le action inv d.": (IS/.MND - 3- .Emphasis a . . ) Here, the '*hole action" includes the bridge as well as the proposed structure itself, b* Air Ouality The Project is inconsistent, With the Aar ualit y Management Plan — The ISIA4ND states: "[a]ccording tothe guidelines and the Air. Quality Management Plan (AQMP), a. Oroj ect MU st conform to the,localGeneral Plan afid. must not result or exceed the City's projected population growth forecast." (IS/MND p, 7-Emphasis. added.) cviifomxity therefore requires two . elements: consistency with the City's projected population: growth f6recastand with the General Plan. For the reasons set worth in Section I (e) of this, letter, wd b&heve that the PtoJect.19 inco_ns tent`wiih the GelierhYPTan, As: 4,r6siju.. there is a fair Ogurtient the. Project will conflict with or obstruct implementation . of the AQMP, thereby creatingazigqificant air quality impact. Mitig@LoLn Measure AQ-1 is Inadequate, — The IS/MNDponcludesthat implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 18.:necessaryto reduce potential impacts associated with Air Quality thresholds III(b), 111(c): and TIT(d) to a less than significant love. (IS/UND, pp. 8-9.) That Mitigation Measure reads, in relevant part; "LiN applicant should use IOWNOC%zrchitectural coating for the bui Iding ?. , [and] architectural coatings should not be applied to: no snore . than 10,500 square feet of con.struction,per.day." The-use of the world "should" 11 4CISIMI W i. stead. of I or '`musf 'means that implementati IOD of.Mitigation Measure AO-1 is mana t manatt J phelps [pbI lips. Mayor Mickey :Segel and City Council May 7, 2413 Page 4 permissive, not mandatory. Such a permissive Mitigation Measure cannot be relied upon to .reduce a, potentially significant impact below the level of significance. The applicant or contractor may, y °s mply.chose to ignore the Mitigation Measure if for instance, compliance would he economically inefficient or would cause delays in project build out.. Unless the Mitigat on Measure, ig. revised, the Project will result in sigriificatnt and unavoi dable impacts with respect to Air Quality thresholds 1.1T(b), M(q) and 111(d). — Ail- Quality threshold J.11(c) asps whether the Project will "Nes ilt in a cuattriativqy. considerable net. increase of any ,criteria pollutant for which the project-region is nonattaffiment under an applicable federal or state amhierit'air quality standard." (ISlNiI TD., P 9.). `The analysis of this threshold focuses only on project - related emissions, ignoring any cumulative emission sources. leaders are left to ,guess what cumulative protects were considered.; what the boundaries of the cumulative impact area are, and/or haw the IS/NM approaches cumulative impact analysis.. As- a result, the 1S/N4ND's conclusion that Project's cumulative.impacts would.bc less than significant is not supported by substantial evidence. c, Ciilturad Resources The Project Ma hn act a Scenic Vista — The 1,S/MN-D; concludes that the Project .will;not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical It because "it will not obstruct views ofthe :historic resources on ilia Santa Anita Park site," (IS /MM7, p� 28.) We disagree. The City Council's staff report includes two photographs (Photos 1 and 2) depicting existing views of the Project Site from the public right of way (i.c., Huntington Drive.) These photos clearly show, that, today, there are virtually' unobstructed views of the racetrack, grandstands, and garden/couxOmrd areas adjacent to the grandstands from the portion of Huntington Drive adjacent to the Project Site: All. of tl ese are considered by the City to be historic resources, At 70,096 square feet in size and four stories {3' hoght the Project would clearly obstruct views of these historic resources and create the potential for a significant cultural resources impact that must be evaluated in an EIR. manaft manatt I Ohelp§ j phiflips Mayor Mickey Segal and City Council May 7, M3 page d. fir—eenhouse Gas Eniissions Evidence TheJS/MND zolicludes. that "tht proposed mitigation (GHG- 1) -requiriffig a $2.94;44Y . Oun-sit, subsidy to be made available to 1.00% of employees who work at projprt site would reduce estimated GHG emis§ionsto, 2,918 menctons CO2E," (IMAND 14 However, the ISIMND Presents no substantial evidence explaining how this impact will bemitigate.d or Whit the:.Icvelg of the Vari6us erhi I$s . ions Will ba.followitg mitigation. Nor does it explain what the $1.98 will bt used for, why $2:98 is the appropnate .fi s feasible or effect' gure orwAy. QUQ- 1 i effective. In short,. the LS/N M, simply tosses out the $2.98 figure: and leaves the reader to figure out on their own how that $2.9$ =is going to mitigate a,potential environmental impact. Witho-asubstantial evidence in support of its conclusions, there is. therefore & fair argumerttibat the, Project' I resultin will a significant and unavoidabkadversc Greephou'se, Gas impact.- e. Land Use As discussed below,.the City's. General Plan::sets forth a clear vision fora U.0ified commercial .developm6nt for the southemIR( . )rtion.of Santa Anita Park, includiAg the Project � Site. Asa standalone . medical office buildingtMt is not part' of any nifi.ed.:,roM.m=jodevelopMent,iho-�,�rojeot.i�. . .. Y U.. inherently consistent with the General Plan?'s vision and p6licies, yet: the ISM NV 'asserts that the Project wall no, result in any land use impacts. (1$/MND, p. 19 The IS/MND :presents ,no substantial: DIII evi .,x p! I 4 09 how theTroject's inconsistencies can plausibly be reconciled with the General f lab, however. Without such substantial evidence, there, is a fAir argument that A e, p .41 of the Project could result i a ptov. n.a Significant and unavoidable.land useimpact.' General : Plait –Consistency Required – Th e City has pledged to ensure the consistency of its Oeneml Plan and zoiAffi 1 9 regulations by prohibiting zo,ning of properties in a manner that is inconsistent orkicompatible with surroundingzoniniz or land uses, and by reviewing development proposals for consistency with. all applickle: land .use .'regu.1ations. (General Plan, 2777.) Asa corollary, the Arcadia Municipal Code ( "AMC ") requires that any specific plan adopted by tho'City be:co nsi.stent with the General Plan. Specifically, AMC Section 9296.8 requires that, prior to approving a specific plan, the City Council find that::: Maned )„ phelps i.:phillipg Mayor Mickey Segal and City Council May 7, 2013 Page'.o t o The proposed specific plan or specific plan amendinent is consistent with the general Planeincluding the goals; objectives, policies; and action programs of the City's General.Plan, and 0 The specific plan or proposed specific: plan amendment is a desirable planning tool to implement the provisions of the City's General Plan. As a staodalonemedical:office building that. is not:part of any cot ercxai iie�relopzncnt; tite Prajegt —i oiuding its'proposed specific plan is inherently inconsistent with the General Playa's vision and policies, General. Plan Sets Forth Clear 'vision of Unified Commercial Deve aun ent at.Santa Anita Park — The City's General Plan was most recently updated in 2010 following an extensive effort by the City and its: residents 10 create a. comprehensive land use plan for all areas ofthe City, including critical "land use focus areas" .such:as. S.anta Anita. Park. As a. result of being designated such a fb cus area, "the. General Plan Advisory Committee, City leaders, City staff, and the cotnmuhity" worked' together over several years to develop strategies for these selected areas that would:. o Achieve more : efficient or productive use a.£ l d :resources. o Eticourage uses that would bet efit the Citythrough increased: revenue, employment, and/oar housing opportunit t s. o Incentivize innovative;mixed� -use projects. o Enhance select commercial corridors, o :Establish a vision for fature. land uses:,on.properties that will experience sigrdficant transition (.General Plan, p. 2-37.) ;As the General Plan. makes abundantly clear, the -City has dev &loped a clear vision for the future development of the southern portion of Santa: Anita Park,: including the Project Site.pecffacally, the City intends to facilitate the development of a un,,�ie�d commercial projectIn this locadon and`to "create a synergistic economic relationship" between: these new proposed commercial: uses and:the existing race track and the manaft elps ! phillips: Mayor lVdick -ey Segal and City Council May 1, 2015 Page 7' Westfiel Santa Anita shopping mail. (General Plan, p 2 -64;) dri this .point, the General Plan states. o The rtiiiic of uses vvitl ai ' this development area should add to end errhance;the range of'existing retail in the City, and provide: uses w1 ich.can draw °from, and contribute to existing . Patronage at the mall. and race traclF , Tkmix of uses. and the design of new:commerc*l developmerit.should'work together to create a place whore people can and will want to .come for shopping and enjoyment. A wide range: of compatible land, uses Js, desired that will increase the arPes: M149, sales potential by bringing g zxore activity anti: buyers to the area.. Thus; the retail component of •new development within the southerly ,Portion of the a race track should provide u unique shopping experience, emphasking a mix of generalketaaling and specialty goods. ( Generral Plan, p, 2265; Emphasis added.): TQ support.:this future aoirim -& ial;developmei t the: General Plan?s.land u. se designation for the:- outhern portion of SWIM Anita Park is °`Santa Alta Commercial," with a corresponding floor area ratio ( "FAR ") of" 0.3 1. ;As described below, the General. Plan requires tixat any incremental: development cif the southern poi Lion, of Santa Anita. Park be consistent with the General Plan's ravetall vision of the desired land uses for Santa Anita Park. The. Project is °ari office facility does not complywith any of these retail: oriented General Plan requirements; thereby creating a General Plan inconsistency. use L.onststeney .tgRdIIf in Threshold'X b3 -- Given; the: General Pim's clearlanguage regazding the f fure•deveZopment of Satzta Anita Park; the City's analysis of the Project's alleged land use consistency trust be thorough and complete. However, the staff report prepared fo, r the City CounciI''s May 7, 2013 meeting ( "Staff Deport,) appears to disregard. the clear inconsistencies between the Project.and.the:Godera,l Plan wit h1he following; language: The detailed language included in the .General Plan: is: :intended for a large, Integrated coinmerctal/retai roject. Therefore, the .vast, majority of the General Plan language: is not applicable: to the :current project. Nevertheless; it is import. ant n on aft manatt 1 Phelps I Phillips Mayor Mickey Segal and City Council May 7, 2013 Page 8 to evaluate this project in. accordance with the General Plan to ensure that the development -of this portion of Santa Anita: Park would not inhibit the future development envisioned mi the General Plan. (Staff Report, p. 9-: Emphasis added.): By stating that the General Plan's "detailed language" i p is applicable;, to the Project, the :Staff Report all but concedes 'thal-the Project: I'S inconsistent With, the General PI . an. However, instead of providing a complete analysis of this ;inconsistency; the Staff Reprt erely states tha t it is "important" to; evaluate the 'Project under the General Plan, but .only to deters inn Whether the Project would inhibit the future development of the unified commercial project contemplatedby the General Plan. This -is not° . a sufficient form of analysis, Contrar the : Staff Report says the y to: what General.Planis "dot ' ailed tangu4g�"is clearly applica . bl . b to Project site, and the City must provide a complete analysis of thle'Project's consistency with the General Plan. instead ofprovidinga legatly-adequate land use analysis, the Staff Report contains numerous unswported:statcments regarding theProject.'s alleged consistency with the Gene.ra.l. Plan. In an atteWt to reconcile the General Plan's clearrestriction on office developmentat1he sout1l4ern . portion of Santa AnitaPark ("[olffice uses sshould,,at most, be a minor portion of new devp1opment, and be. supportive of the overall commercial character of the site," General Plan, p:. 1-66), the -Staff ReportgimolynotesAllat the :Project_ represents only five percent of the commercially- designated Santa Anita Park property. (Staff Report, p. 9.) Of course,. the Project's propol tionally small size does not automatically mean.thatits medical .office use is.s4p portive of the desired overall commercial character of Santa Anita Park (which should "providaa unique shopping experience, emphasizing'. f retailing and specialty. goods," accordin o a mix o general the General 'Plan.) Simo'arly.-the General Plan strq4gly wam agaippt piecemoal,development of Santa Anita Park that would impair the future development of a. unified commercial project. The Staff Report purports to quote: the General Plan as follows: .It is likely that new development will occur in a number ,of increments. Individual increments need to yield a cohesive, viable mbc of uses, and should not be,predicated on the manaft manatt j phelps.1 Phillips Mayor Mickey Segal and. City Council May 7, 2013 Page -9 construction: ofa =subsequei tincrement. Development needs.to appear complete (Staff Deport, p..9; Emphasis added.) To "demonstrate consistency with; this excerpted General Plan language, the Staff Report siply"states "This [the Proiect] is .the first `zzcrernet' to be developed, but as such it meets the' intent of tine General Plan and does neat conflict with .any General-plan goals:" Again, this analysis is inadequate, especially in light of the General Plan's fall language. regarding.increinental development, which emphasizes the .mporta ice of each "increment "'relating to the overall vision. of develop�ag �a fed commercial development at S. anta Ariiia..Paik Q The commercially designated portion of the race- track's southerly parking lot is large;(85 acres) and potentially able to accoxru�iodate significant new develQ�pment. It is thus likely that new deveioprneni will : occur in a nuriaber of increments. ements: .Individual development �nerem.ents need to yi I a cohesive_, viable mix 6f uses, and should not. be predicated upon the construction :ofa subsequent increment. Thus, with me completion of any, jhdividual development increment, the Mule of `the cvmmea+�c rat area needs to .rippear to he "`complete-" s tnulioneously, each development increment needs to represent a rational step .thatprovides linkages to Previeus commercid development wlihin the race track, :as: Well as to subsequent development increments, the mall; and to the rare track Itself: in,add tion, this gEUeleline will minimize visual impacts on the public roadways. (General Phil, p. 2 *9; Emphasis added.) Given the full languge of the General Plan regarding iricrernental development, it ismoi accurate for the Staff Report to claim that the Vroicct'`°meets the intent of the General Plan and .does ilot conflict with any General .Tan ,goals." a rreceMeal 6 eeitjc t1laii That Raises 5 ot_ .Z,(jnihg Concerns The General Plan's vision for the future comwereial. deveiopxnent. of the. southern portion of Santa Anita Park's to. be preserved by requiring City approval of a specif c .Plan, "or aU equivalent master planni "ngprocess adapted by the City," which is to be consistent with the 1 I [Moat manatt l.phelps I phillips Mayor Mickey Segal anal City Council .May 7, 201 page' l0 General Plan's detailed provisions regarding this iaaa fled commercial development: (General Plan, p. 2.54.) Despite this clear language, the City appears to be treating the General Plan's specifcpla vmasier plane requirement as as inple procedural step that must be. complied with in order to develop an. ncorr patible medical office use. As the StaffReport states, `even though a single med oal office building' is not the target for such a [speeific plan] process, it. is important that the Hale Medical Center project is processed as a Specific Plan... " (Staff Report, p 4) This is not eompell'mi g reasoning as to why the City should approve a specific plan here —#he 5taffR.eport is treating the General Plan's language as simply: imposing a technical entitlement processiing requirement, and not as an obligation for the City to ; the General PIan's vision of future land. uses for- Santa Arita Park. Moreouer, the Staff }deport; and the draft. Specific Plan itself, acknowledge the arbitrariness of approving a specific: plan for the Prolect.:The City Counci"I :apparently had concerns regarding the piecemeal development.. of Santa Anita Park, and the possibility bat the property may not be cveloped rz a.consistent fashion. (Stalff Decor, P. 4, graft. Hale Medical. Center Specific Plan. rl)raft:Specifc:PIW%p..1) However,. apparently after sortie discussion, the Council subsequently determined..that`the Project could,move forward as a: specific plan "be €ause of the "location axed synergy „'With :tVlethodist Hospital and: the existing reed cal office building at 301. VVest:kluntitirgtvn Drive: �) Once again, this is not compelling roasor>ing; and does riot constitute: substantial evidence of consistency with the General Plan—the General Plans clearly requires that a specific plan be approved for the:southern portion. of Santa Anita Park ]n order to facilitate the d'eveIopment of a large unified commercial, project that meets the com.n. unity -servi ig goals set forth in the General Plan. Instead of complying with the clear intent of the General Plata, it appears that the City has decided to examine the Project's potenti consistency and "synergy” with the Hospital property across Huntington Drive, which is subject :to a completely different -set of General Plan: land use policies. in addition., the -City appears unwilling to have the proposed approval of the Project's specific plan serve as a precedent for future proposed developments at Santa -Anita Park —the Staff Deport and Draft'.Specif c Platt both. state that "the remainder of the commercial property on the Santa .Anita Prope;rty;should be part of a cohesive roaster plan::for the site, and that additional small -scale use of the ma °n.:ft manatt I Phelps. l Ph € €4ps. Mayor Mickey Segal and. City Council. May 7, 2013 Page. I I patking area; would: need to be part of a: coordinated phas�ri 'plan: :for the development of the site." (id.) This language is completely sup'erfltlous, because the General Plan already nets : forth this clear requ,irement:for any development on the southern portion of Santa Anita Park, However,: by rillawing the Project to seek, approval of, a APecijic Plan: but forbidding Oiler future:;smallprojeds from doing the same, the City is picking an ,d choosing when to heed t ie GenergI Plan, creating the posstbilitp,Qf a one -off ,. piecein ealeri approval of are M' ,gons Wep tProled . Finally, the. 'C. ty's disregard ofthe General PtAi's land use - policies; and its proposed approval of a specific-plan f01'the Projectdespite the General Plait's clear intention that the entire suuthem portion of Santa An ita Park be iiaster- planned, raise issues oaf spot:zgnin;g. `fSpot zoni 2g" has been defined as "the zoning ofa small area ofland, or one�or more.properties, for a use that is not in harmony with.the normal zoning plan for the area, especially if a small. areais.rezoned in a -way tliat does not conform with the surronnding neighborhood. Spat zoning is normally invalid if the permitted .,,seas Very froth the surrounding area; the area involved is small; or it can be shown that'.the' murdcipality has favored one landowner to, the unreasonable detriment of ihe Surroun:ding °area, or so as to prejudice the intention of a comprehensive plan" (Encyclopedia: of Real. Estate Terms, Third Edition,) As discussed in AL, Wilkins v. City of Scare; Bernardino, spent zonin is iltegal in Cai forwa under certain circumstances. (l,Z: Wilkins v, City Of;$` i n Bernardino, -29 Cal.2d 332 (1946.) As proposed :the.Hale Medical;Center Specific Plan a nstitutes raperrn ssilxle spot zoning because it 6uld be applied to only a single project and single ownership i4texest: (totahng.4.25 acres) rather than a' broader geographic area athex properties within or adjacent to Saner Anita Park shann& similar physical,characteristics i'ront ng_alang Huntington Avenue or otherwise'proxiihate ta'Methodist hospital) were not concurrently offered similar zoning, NO alternative configurations of the Specific.PIm wed presented. n the Staff R, eport, thus preventing: any othex current.:or, f€rture property owners from befitting from the pr "oposed Specific: Plan, Finally, as described above, the. Specific: Plan: is not Corisistorit with the General Plan's land use pWi '0s for Santa Anita Park. It is clear that: the sole purpose u f the proposed Specifi Plan:is to permit the development of the Project, and only the Project. Therefore, because approval_ofthe Specific Plan would favor one landowner to the deix.men f rnanaft II Mi 06 l ] Oha S I hIMP§: - p P . Mayor Mickey&g.al and CityCouncff May 7, 2013 Page, 12 L Noise of others, and would prejudice the;intenttonof theE:General Plan, this approval would constitute . impermissible spotzonting. Evidence.— With. respect: to construction noise, the IS/MNb cone . ludes,that `IcOnstruction for this project will be required to comply with the Noise E jonimt Ome City of Arcadia's,%General Plan as well as. (the Municipal Code. as lioi e.,regulations for pon-s.ft tioji acthri i m which limit the maximum none level, and hours of construction-aoti vdty.... Therdere, the impacts will bellm = significant ., (IS/MND, p. . 20 Mer e c om p �i anc e w it h City-urescrbed:construction hours does not gug?itqQ 4lqss, th significant construction n oise Impact. Such significance conclusions can only be reached through detailed analysis supported by substantiaI evidence. Without such substantial evidence, there is a fair argainentthat the Project's construction. noise will in a significant .and -unavoidable adverse noise impact on nearby sensitive receptors. The 1MYfND also concludes hat although the heavy equipment involved with Pro ject construction would result in some level :of' vibration, "it is not anticipated to be; substantiOly greater in,magnitade than that associated witli the passing of other heavy vehicles such as garbage trucks. (,IS/MND, p..20.) This impact is therefore deemed to be less than significant, That is missing, of course, is substantial evidence•o. support inclu IMMMUM) this conclusion, ding.(.at a counts of theMumber of' construction vehicles. operating per day and per hour an the.Proj . pot site. Without such substantial evidence, there is a fitir argunientthat the Project's constriction. vibration will resWt. in, a sigaiAcant and unavoidable adVekde. nin"p-act on. nearby sensitive receptors: A. Utilities and Service. Sisteins. Analyzed —ThPITSACIM and. Staff Report note .that the Hale Projoet's: sewer discharges will be tied -in to the existing- sewer. main can; Huntington Drive, which, is 'rb=ntly considered to be deflcient by the City's Public c Works -Departinent. '(Staff Report, p. 7) Aptoposal to:4pgrade this sewer main's . capacity is "under eonsider4tion" i1i.the: QV:8: Capital ^ manaft Mayor Mickey Segal and Qi May 7, 2013: Page 13 Improvement 'Progm, which apparently would involve t' he City designing tha necessary sewer improvements in Fiscal Year 2014-2015, and constructing these improvements in F . iscal Year2015-2016 ad.) Prior Y? to 410 i8suance of 9: building, permi- a pr share of the construction cost of thi sewer improvqme However, if the City does not construct these. sewer ='prove . m ents as contemplated, Condition. otApproval. No. 5 requires that, priorto . tfie issuance,ofa Certificate of OCct;p-In-ry,- the developer construct these sewer improvements himself. By including this condition of approvaL the Sta. Report and: IS&IND ff clearly contemplate the fact that the Hate Projectcould iricludea sewer projeO description does not make any reference�o this . 'cotit fated sewer improvement work, nor does the IS/N2,q1D contain any analysis of complete project description,,that includes all integral: components: of a proJdct,:Js. necessaryto ensure that all of the 6xivironinental impacts. of the p3d.at 1; 5 Notably. California appeals courts hava held that . such. "integral components" can. include the �ewer lines and other required wastewater improvements that ,are required to N, constructed as part: of a project agn Jo�aquin Ruthermore, if a mitigation measure identified in a CBQA document would itself causesignificantenvi . ronmental impacts that are. distinct�-from. 1:2.5 C.41-App.3d 986.), Here MitigadO Measure USS-1 simply require the developer to construcrthe . necessary sewer improvements prior . to a certifi . . catp of Occupancy being. issued, but there is no discussion of any potential environmental impacts, significant or otherwise,resulting from maqaft manaft I ph(�Ips I PhIMPS Mayor Mickey Segal And City Council. 34ay'7p 2013 Page 14 2. c The City's; standard IS/MND checklist recognizes the CEQA requirements described above, and notes, "All answers must take, account of the whole action involved, qfflsik gs. well 4S. ; � sit e, mulative as well as project level, -indirect as well as direct, and construction -as well as operational imparts,," (IS&IND, p. 3; Emphasis added). . By:faiag to provido laconiplet6. projead.e.soription that includes this sewer reponsftuation. work, and by failing to analyze the potentialenvirolimental. impacts of theoseweT reconstruction work, that may be required under Mitlkadon Measure USS-1, the IS/MND is legally inadequate, and must be revigddto accurately analyze the full scope of the. proposed project, and any imp4pts resulting from the proposed sewer improv emeot work. The IS/MND's; conclusion that _the Project will not have,"cumulatively considerable" irnpacts is not:supportedby substAntial. evidence. .(IS/A4ND,..p. 27.) According to the ISAM. , "'Cumulatively considerable' means: that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the, offects of past projerog the effects, of other current prej oct Aa& the eMQts;o.f probAb!e f aae p Octs."Wd Instead of critically, evaluating the potential for such. cumulative impact$, rpj umul the IS&M: all. but ignores cumulative unpadts,, failing, to abide by its own directive, to "take account of the whole action i d, including . ofd site as well as on-site cumulative mulative, as well :as proiecNevek indirect as well as diyoct,: and construction as well. as opura.oQnal impacts..": (ISMND, p. 5; Emphasis added.) The following is a: partial: list . of theTroject.6 whose impacts must be accounted for in the ProjeWs revised cumulative.4 mpacts analysis:i o Gold Line ;.Foothill Extension :;EUo"ect, The'Cityis currently. constructing the Gold Line Foothill Extension, a project: that will extend the Gold Line by I from Pasadena to Azusa. This project. is expected to take ne . arly a. year to complete and will: cause traffic disruptions and detours that-should be considered Mtha ISfMND8 traffic: analysis, Ofrke ]9LX1d13ftg CoMolek With Restaurant and Parking Fagliftieg. On February -the Qitytouncil upheld the Planning Commission's approval of three office: buildings, totaling 64,255 &f, two restaurants within the buildings; I tot ' Ag4,6OOo.f.,.aTxd a new four-level parking garage At 115 . Huntington brivt & 16:1 Colorado. Place. This laroject W manaft Manatt 1phelps] pfifflips Mayor Mickey Segal and City Coutoil May 7,2013, Pago 1:5 will clearly contribute. to the underlying traffic and noise cc in. the area s. urro.u.n. d in. g the Project S't e. Rasnak-A - readia1ereedes-Benz -Expansion.. Asmof . April 2- . 013 then City has rourned nPgO40ions;,with Ru 54ak-AmWia Mercedts-Benz, located at 55 W. Huntington Drive, concerning the dealership's expansion p1p, which Would allow Rugnak to purchase the four commercial. properties that it needs taekpand- This -pr will clearly 0 contribute: to the widerl. ingtraffic an wiftdition� 10, the areasutrbundihg Yin d,noise. the Ptpject Site. Museum Education Center. In 20,09. the:: City Council aopibmbd q concept fora `Museum. Education C enter 0 be located ad jac ent to the Glib Museum at.380W.Huntingto'n,Dr. In March of 2013, the City, approved the release ,of the R_FP d for,drsign:and.Constraction bids-. This project will clearly contribute to the underl3d� traffic an , : no is, conditions nditions.1 in the area surrounding the Project Site; Without apomprehensive analysis of the irupact§ ofth ese : do e projects . -wh an other n e combined with the proposed.,Proicct, the IWND contains no substantial evid once to supportits conchisionthat Pr6ject would .have a1ess than significant cumulative enviromnental impact. (IS/MND, p. 27.) minaft manatt J-pho!ps I ON1110P. Mayor Mickey Segal and City Council. VTay 752013 page 16 ;V,I. Cond"Sio . For the x' Oohsset forth 4hoft', the numerous 4nadequacies mi i .identification of mpacts and the analysis of impacts: 0 the proposed Project are sufficient to support a. "fair 4Upment' tji4t the Project may have a. significunfeffeci on the environment. We respectfully arge. the City to prepare an EIR. to address thr, numerous inadequacies identified above.. We: appreciate the opportunity to comment on theJS/MND and your consideration: of our Comments. PC', Mr, Stephen Ruckerid•e Mr. Chris Lambrec-lit Jason Thomas, Esq. Stephen.Deitseh, Esq. 307990639.1 ORDINANCE NO. 2307 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN — SANTA ANITA 1 AND THE SPECIFIC LAND USE REGULATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN FOR THE HALE MEDICAL CENTER ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 289 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized by Article II, Section 200 of the City Charter to prepare, adopt, and amend Specific Plans for the purpose of systematically implementing the City's General Plan with respect to particular geographical areas and projects within the City; and WHEREAS, the Arcadia Municipal Code, Section 9296.7(2) provides that the adoption or amendment of any Specific Plan within the City shall be accomplished by ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Hale Corporation submitted an application for the following land use entitlements on an approximately 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park property: a Specific Plan (Application No. SP 13 -01), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 13 -01), a Zone Change (ZC 13 -01), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 13 -01), and Architectural Design Review (ADR NO. 13 -04) for a four -story, 70,096 square foot medical office development (The Hale Medical Center) at 289 West Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the adoption of the Specific Plan, along with all other applications identified above, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1869 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 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 as recommended by the Development Services Department and subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on said applications, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the associated staff report is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the City Council, based upon the entire record, including all written and oral evidence presented, finds with respect to the proposed Specific Plan provided as shown in Exhibit "A ", the following: (i) the Specific Plan is consistent and compatible with the City's General Plan, as amended, as well as the goals, objectives, policies and action programs of the City's General Plan, as amended; 2 (ii) the Specific Plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare, or result in an illogical land use pattern; and (iii) the Specific Plan is a desirable planning tool to implement the provisions of the City's General Plan and the General Plan encourages use of a Specific Plan for the project site. The project site is unique within the City, as noted in the General Plan. As such, the project site merits specialized development regulations tailored to meet the project site's special development opportunities and limitations. As such, the City Council finds it desirable that the Specific Plan be adopted to address these unique needs. SECTION 3. Based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the City Council finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project and there will be less than significant impacts on the environment as a result of the project as further described in the Initial Environmental Study. SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves Specific Plan No. 13 -01 for the Hale Medical Center as set forth in Sections 2 and 3. SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. 3 SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of same to be published at least once in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty -first (31S) day after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 4 Mayor of City of Arcadia .2013. EXHIBIT "A" HALE MEDICAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN k HALE MEDICAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN SANTA ANNTA 1 Introduction 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. 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 also expressed 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 Drive medical office building already developed on the site. 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 site. A typical Specific Plan includes a wide range of uses, a large property area, unique infrastructure and public service demands, and often phased development. In this case, because it is a simple, single medical office building, the Hale Medical Center Specific Plan consists of straightforward development plans for the subject property. Hale Medical Center Specific Plan May 7, 2013 Page 1 Specific Plan Contents The Specific Plan includes the site plan, floor plans and elevations for the building, as well as additional renderings and site information, and the conditions of approval. The Specific Plan will also be shown as such on the official Zoning Map of the City as SP- SA1 (Specific Plan Santa Anita 1). The plans and elevations show the development standards applicable to the site, including height, setbacks from Huntington Drive and other property lines, landscaping, lighting, parking and loading, and signage. The site plan and /or the associated 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. 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 Program (MMRP). The following plans, sheets, and attachments make up the Specific Plan: Sheet A -0 Site Plan Sheet A -1 First Floor Plan Sheet A -1.1 Second Floor Plan Sheet A -1.2 Third Floor Plan Sheet A -1.3 Fourth Floor Plan Sheet A -1.4 Roof Plan Sheet A -2 Elevations Rendering'! East Elevation Rendering2 Aerial View of East/North Elevations Rendering3 Aerial View of West/South Elevations including pedestrian bridge Landscape Plan Bridge Detail Conditions of Approval In addition, the following documents are associated with the Specific Plan and are on file in the Planning Division of the Development Services Department, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA. • Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan (dated March 11, 2013) Hale Medical Center Specific Plan May 7, 2013 Page 2 • Sewer Area Study, prepared by EGL Associates (dated March 6, 2013) • Tentative Parcel Map No. 72193, prepared by EGL Associates • Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Parking and Access Agreement with The Stronach Group /Owner • Grading Plan and Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan • Water Efficient Landscape Plan Interpretation of the Specific Plan 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, and 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. 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. 5. Building- mounted mechanical equipment or cellular installations. 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 by publication in a 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. Hale Medical Center Specific Plan May 7, 2013 Page 3 KEYNOTES■ a HALE HALE MEDICAL CENTER CENTENNIAL MAY 289 W. HUMTINOTON DRIVE tn.., _ ARCADIA, CA 91007 – – - - - -- -- -- — CNIC CENTER PL ] ewsnw u9nc cus Aso elrrros ro ssawx 01614'a'0■� 7 6mklas A Dev kj- 11K Nsl umanem I suiulm'CAW se• �g ��75ue.9iu3 a� 10 aoc xa SUMMARY, ZONE, CO-146 NIn,9 cl Q+ rx■nw wmaeAnw ro ICJ+Aw �1■^uarxmAr■as1 -res crt. >rA«oAw 8 ne: azt359- 1 LAFWCAPNO LAND, +1- 186, 273 SF BUILDING, 70,096 SF FAR, 37.8 % j!r a FOOTPRINT, 17,969 SF 0 LOT COVERAGE, 9.6% 7r ■' °' °"�" °Lf unws ma¢ a nrva OO NP•1 LOIY.1l7■ GAM O WDOCAre rtAlne■ A■[A Qe re s wan,w, rAV,w • >a uva Q+ rAaxlw aiwrnw ra■c,m sr.NOAw ®AS•swe Aw. AU:ssrw+■xroilw dOewix i 7 ¢ LANDSCAPING, 21,616 SF nn 13.X I rea PARKING, REO'D 6/1 360 STALLS PRV'D, 368 STALLS sm1 EXISTING HOSPITAL PARKING S7RUCT Qnw`�°AO">^I>,.e ss,Ir elx sn■r'm �AOA Vµ ACCewels rr�e I.oAO,w e'c•.ac• AOA rARFIw arALL m eaN me see r•Ia ©AOA rAlauw lm erf■Anlce moan ,n.x�. S SN Nul LLC ADA PARKING 8 STALLS ® CAV PARKING 29 STALLS 1��'K"�•'' BICYCLES 18 SPACES ® ® 6 ♦ 6 * ® o _�- � ® S ELEVATION E E{L—EVAl10N 1 raw. r� �, ® I ` ®� / / ® SEC110N A ■ m4ey O � V R Qe«ewsv rwvlw wunu,LL Q■asm rt.Arodv aeArAISA �a a,vme .IS'ww,u•Nax,wear>IeN Q m' NaN �aNr na.E ®e' GONG. seer xw rrr. (] cNA■s"w arA,Iw n+1„s¢I ®r per ,, � ®]e' rxa we. rwvlw sscn0,+ ro 111,r1n]IET ,],GOO �■ °■Ie,rt. o � vA�ve aueeesso rslrx ®■u9.olw Aoo■e» -s• 1.ernles .nn rM! OCf. KW%mx LOChT,ON O e' LOLKASC aloe M7! 6 5U5.1spee Ave SAeA C 11o,va.L, a 91916 6 F 4 �m y H L C6i1t6f }� 299 Wat WMgIM b Mad, G 91997 nYe COp Ea6 PLAN GENERATOR ENCLOSURE EAST ELEVAT v ,■qIC MaWi ■Y4i ♦'-O" ® �� —a--- SANTA ��,�� sohlTiNSe,a " ANITA PARK I e ® ®"°'�•■ r� m2 M —T i NOK ME PAM 6 W6Ya aaR ME '■E"°°°'aE"°°xP "" ■IORt9s¢r ain■wi•a ...,.....,.� �•w r {y/I�S� /' "" "" Bak: n Erg y SelxeraE E■YaMa E Fk bbWI: SM,aa N Ektlrbe SIW EN ! vaaoce: teo ` T. w9x.E «NiE t Q ®a.■ "v SITE PLAN i a ELEVATION SIDE • ■ 0 o ONMNUMENT SIGN �.■a. �,�■ AGt a eiOS. ,_ 1 4,. •�' I� ]• rs■ wv� ]• rse ♦• aiI!■I�IAn e• INr[1UtDIAn e e• PG .4 b 41� /• AMH aae, u�EaE 0■ .�po. 9 � FFa 6 ,... 51m WROUGHT IRON - ,■srnwew,aw @ LOCKING GATE FENCING BRIUGL L1tvATM 9ECi1oN pa A-0 y SITE PLAN r i HALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 X BW]dm a M3e k p- ny the Hate Capxallm 3 513 S. M-e0e eve., SUbee 1 -1• 6,oaaN,G91016 •� td:b %35M533 { lav:6 %354Nb] 9 y-pfi- 2'1' -]• 2P- — 20' -0• _ • -2• 2112• y. -Dl• 21 217 O . COVERED ENTRY 1' \ / X O O C. O O O O O O O O " O i a I I I Ow-sr LOBBY cl • O 1088 5E Q ° E su EEp AMA A � —ft G 51016 4 X pep _ I.o i LOBBY g O • I � 0 qeq walwaglmd � � - — — — — — — — — — — — - ELECT n O 1 ercti0ea: the Mek Can ��� * 11(iErg ft.. : see Enq I Pktft SMKn Enq E-tt 5'. EN S I+�ane: TBD 9 I n n FIRST O 9 FLOOR PLAN a O° O O° O° O° ° 0 ernes 2 7r -oJ�• r-oj• 31 7e' -D •• r,_7„ 27' -2' 70'-0" 2112• 7112- y' 9 _ _ � k027H O 9 i5 25 $CALF EeX i X slecr A -1 1' FIRST FLOOR PLAN0 1 Z S HALE 6 7 8 7 ewlk..a�lk�.i,.l, Rew C0«i P 91Ja IMe�e 9�p n ID]' -I' WvaY. G 91016 11' ,._,. O O co O O _ _ A B e ■ h n i 911 NU1 LLC. g sus M,ue.we s,nzn ! MmrvMn, G 91016 o a O — — S4 V LOBBY _ H L i o � m 4 ia919«wuwm,w s artaaV,G9100) �.O cma,lw,u 91: nrn,kca, o.L p AVac � � � M d e(i O ; .9 9la 6p 9 4 ° O° ^ SECOND O FLOOR PLAN a O O O O O O O O © © E 9,,D O O • �� F 5 oaa 112-11 F.W- 1°�• -1' 9 Y a Y ! 9nm A -1.1 ! SECOND FLOOR PLAN Y b HALE 7 R Ile 141[Ea'Wr�IIM Tj 4 i Y R d I I I i 5HHU1 fl h ee 9131k Al, 6A � 6mw0.G91016 pl- - — — — — — — — — — — — — i ELEV r — 'HAgr LOBBY X r — — 3699 sHUCD er '� Art�6b, U 9100) O o e _ p4� E Cwuulluru. 1� o O MGlldxl: T1e Halt ON: EQ K sa6a: il( Erp ylll _ _ Tylll yIIIT — — — — D � swmaa: wlrrow a1[C1wid: Shamin N Erg f n.^eblc spawn Erg 1BD I OO s lendaoRe: � o I I �v Y THIRD FLOOR PLAN ry O O gdg 5 RobtllYnaR'. 61121 �1 J 6 i O O O O O O O O O O O O F RnY e g9 1r-0 j• �r-ol • 9 T b 107'-1' y bnn i I A-1.2 THIRD FLOOR PLAN b HALE Y U.W— &De kv—, • -& Z Cwparlm i 2 3 � 5 6 � B 51J 5. My,R Me..016 A D nwaM,G91016 OZ' -I' yye 1 7 y.{7. 714• 7113• W -0. 2112. 71' .1._,. 1._,. 71' I' A O O O O O O O O O O A i i SX Iql LL(. H buSNynkMt.SJIC< f1 O O ry A bxwY,U9101b ry U ry el C o — — — � — — — — — — — — — — — C p—, � -- - - -- I SK4jir ELEV LOBBY I -- M - -- S Y Ig eeeI a wo!•.GWW7910W I l IWCWklt #I D r nnmla slim ero Shwil F A exeloc v,rlin Fro • u„maoe: rm I A I FOURTH g FLOOR PLAN a M1 A ReYn B/ 6 ulx s1 111 O OO OO OO O E Ewa• F Dg sr�• zr -old• 9 � p]•_I• Y sn•e. II A -1.3 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN iruEr 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 8. b HALE 1 2 X Buikkn & De kyen yR6 llle kJe [wpare8m MmoN, G 91016 lel: 6)6358 -1513 �•_"J 71' -7' ]T'- , i 20' -0' 36 -6%U fir. e 9 Y O 4 ° p O O - R y ❑ ❑ ❑ I n HVAC EQUIP sys Mnk A,e, sd«., SH M.i 91 Bg11o'.N,G91016 @a@ EL.EV ❑ ❑ rr M evYnenre 1e 1I Y - ELEV ❑ � ❑ w'w® re umLLrw v.�. wr....�,.r � ••• g HL ppp&g :s9 xt wluearan w ry U Q - n F Nod, U 9100) FF 5 P 7-77. klBlea: the rlak cam CH: Ea ft : MEW ySS$ sak 1 Sbwke9l. M' E 11¢i W. SNn6rl EN X PhmbYrO: Sh-* E09 � �� ��" Er5 LdMWpe: lab a I' NORTH .� n RIMRE'SOLM FIELD .r rw%ww n ry 0 �6.. rail. ROOF PLAN i a p p o ° o s rs ss _ � rmlea runner. SCALE � 6 ROOF PLAN I /8'•I -0' � RMbu yX ALUM. PANELS r-p METAL PANELS PAINTED ANGLE BRACE 8 X b r- PITCH POCKET TYR X .. A -1.4 9 DETAILS PARAPET EXT.�A E. 3 EQUIPMENT SCREEN R Wft; METHODIST HOSPITAL I No HALE MEDICAL CENTER HALE 289 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA Builders & Developers HALE MEDICAL CENTER HALE 289 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA Builders & Developers HALE MEDICAL CENTER HALE 289 W. HUNTINGTON DR. ARCADIA, CA Builders & Developers .C.,�r l,�►t r N� 1 N' �1• �k rt_ 1 ';r R P110...Man t. Jack Sprat. Jack Spra11 Flak - retlsw�s ntlss PLANT LEGEND tkYf9 HALE SYYapL a0ra,111CK INYC cOw.OY Ya.IE SIZE t fKTOR COYYLYIS Rurldc+s& RrcM�.n 'yvrno' O M YOn fivlM1Vi Pdm �.. Ja' Oo. � 10' Fun. MH!( Yb � 511 S N� 51!A _ � Caydo unm Caoru. oroGOrp 09oavr C<por J6- Oo. • Mnr.vNe, G 91016 O© O:ck.onb «1mnu�Orn e� rmnw�.m rrr.. r.m 22a- . , y I. F rtt aislsHSil fa.: 616159 -N92 Syegw rerraoee.livnuen Qkwn Pd m 2. Ev ` 21 Y 10' Funk b [� HMlarddl5 ttybr.M. DnNiy LpailMoL alma M/r 1A..aa'. NCN Yv lMica 'formeaa' ® Bums. m pponicv Mdev formo.v Japanna Bv..000 5 pal 5 9vl 56 ,01 O � Yvnebe a'k.e.kou. D.mf PWO0wdroI. 'MPMnvaP' 0.^ «n ttevwnM 9om o0 o Palletl.Mronh 5 pal 5 pal W J1 ! 1. 'P Stn«' ink SFpe fb. P.bck 5 pd J9 a Spvtt ' Sprott M. 5 pol J9> ap coop. -5 preei» � qpl 82 Ila lAy � ♦5 arolalBCavcx � Fylmaa Tm isomwAm Tmf— ® DM�aVOWn icc MoMO Grac 5m Y O c ,2" F r uma ® i ea Slpr Jpam�ne IYt.I 12 paM 0 e a —e• e e Mpg pw� ... n, ! 0 P,e.;ee J- Imo d e «pmw..w m.nn. (wIm spr+np• cpa) � m K,. LA EXISTING PLANT LEGEND Y Diatm lickx. KaBlr I ily SrYSOt eorkYlr Ywf 1 ItQ3 coww Ywc slz[ on. corlflrts H L (Jl epeip lepl «lMa (� cer,,. e.eewp epa YaEdken rrpe oeeepr e.pp. .ari® .prY+ e m nn.pin rwnoin CBf1L (•l( 14 a tl. •h - �_: J� ivk'a� aMNbm m .m YoTdbµY pd. vprlw tB b mMn 5 4rmsanCA-1 g s'.y� ..M taMin9[pni nWrta -- fan Pvlm vprT. 21 b remvin p S rua rane.uplfianMm Cay,,w ulelrs. FiAtA Pdm [[BI O U .. Pk,, Q —i IvnEecope b remam in plow. ;199panaals 0., 4y oI Oh. N - - - - -- - - - -- �d.L. ------------------- -------- - - - - -- ® —^ - :Ip1MBIluo l O�1 1 Dl aI 1 ; /1/ o. y II. HUNTINGTON DRIVE II1I, I1I1I1I1I' I, I1I, I�I1I1I 'I'I'I1I�I'II1I'I'I'I1I��> /. �y l� �a t unwhr.. ` re.c� rlY ne fov tl sr� f.4. aSo-M,.: �kmdn I�u 9 M�,rac sr�.h ire. � elwkt* v.s,wh e.n. = Isrp.�c RI k1.r u tl 6 5lmluk PLAN (SOUTH) a Ym.o Nntr G112? b..n BY 5t1 � pa i2,1 6 SHRUBS • ArxNa •.. inera'Fornro..n. Azalnx Bunn m., Jipaiwen Bun•gad r _ w , 1 NaMina'HarGOUr [lwarf Dwarf HeavenN BanCOo rP fe�) 0 e 0� 0 e— 1, `�• s— ` .,`... I" I s PERENNIALS TREES �Pr O s—.emanzonwnam 1 MdtNSOUd�s hyL , DayWy Air. Laiw.'hnm. ;Mra. Cra O. A,alw ,. maiaa 'lormo,a' Pn alyrNn Arbua,s 1awi,a'. NCN ® &uu. mpro. pperkce O4� NeMwa a.'Neraeur 0.arf' Pl,keaenq+an Yanaeq' Pyormklm L 'iqM� Sb:ae' Ill � � © PNamlum L 'I— Semtt' i ®OP;i h PEImaWS i OQ •gWeel.bl olrRw,a. © Owlw ekolar Clore mKKale. Clore "Vfj (D wm. «aN Mynm PLANT LEGEND oor,oN NMIC m factca COYYCNiS 24 ee. i e, Pee m Ye. mm N k anel.00e Tree 24'.. 1. 2K' aa. 5 puwnnPelm Csm 24'.. 21 Y mm. 10' l.enk Mdse Femne,a 5 qai 56 JWWe,e 6o.eooe 5 qd 0 Purl tteweny Ramose 5 qai KO HALE Nw.Me, G 9 016 tR szs-y 6)6354]a5) 2*7 lar Pink 5lriee ila. 5 qal Jack Sprott Fb. 5 qd ]q) O i 1on9 died ♦MO. —.eaO 15 qai S..a Poreewe 5 qei 82 22a u t L;y d rM ,aM 5 qa� Jq6 , rwn„ Kdfn Liy 5 qal `1 y f 1:y 5 qd 5 oa 5 vai r,xy 11-Y Zoe Y m,we odors i, Mv�nm!� ��n�..oda.uvmm A CuperYOpars anM'.MOwMSe Uck»ma aniSriK:a. Cw.hb Tna T.—.— T— Fm, ® �"Oa°q°" �°"iL° uorwo G,ew t qei — u qeM • t2' oc. ® TreUdewermum tWrnimEw SYw .learrw,e Mra 12 door a t2" e.c. a 0 Pm,�a. a -0• .aaY. ,1an.. em,m� 1,.. tnx.�,. Pm„e. r iaye. d e.aemW..a vrann. (Fbkn sa^.we cow) r EXISTING PLANT LEGEND N SYYeOI aOyAMICY NAUE COYYON MAYC SRC Oly. COMMIS CkAn Mill (.\ Cavi IegWKN4 Gow Ydbagn T— e b rwrq;n '�( \Cebu, aeoeam oeoaor C.ee. to nrrpin (.\ �v.dm.mia inem C— Yyne _ �(J\ uWnoko gro„dwm q^ei'�^ to m Pyowi. bMyl� Ode Pdm 5 b rerrwm 146, FmyTgtede Wda Ywuan Fan Pdm .erb 21 b renvn 9�a0nm mmalROleam,m Caryou wrens. Fi.leai Palm O—P= Q C'alirq �mearvpe b rnrwn in P1ece. ,q .n a..watMlwINTERNAL ROADWAY _ I I q a IT v�oo�oo�oo r m ------- INS! �l I 10 161 I I I Ii�l I I I I'`II I I:•- - L -2 � 2aa vha nua4an n NaJ,,G9;W) ISyanpo Ire. " eq. NMienEn SNran Eq I� vn,�c MO „er Lx { L PLAIMNG g PLAN (NORTH) ? a Pmkn N.mr ti 1 P L -2 s HALE cl BYi1Jm R Dev! Ya m. wle C rpwem 575. WlN A-S b a k! 6]6158-157 SD fa: 63635Y3107 N1n YI.OMY tl993 y� e 9 4 EEO ro.esnowu * y b ��•• ELEV - WGY.MMY RJ Y' MIX rMLL a Y ®; Q Y ti LMOKY�w � WEST HUNTINGTON DR C 9Vrp/YG91016 BRIDGE s S ELEVATION " SECTION 3 1 2�' a w nr ure ..o.ean. n4 ua $ z m center o Q 5.�� omm s m I I •-a" �nrot! . au.* p M9sv9t NU19gm^or � NaN G 9100] io crii wo» la I= BRIDGE TO AMHI — — — — — — BY OTHERS [ ELEC , �C- Ea �® Sb�rd: M/enHOIML ; Pk.," M: S h AmMq: SAmYn Eng. L'a , wl�T r p[ � • AULT AUL z Elabiw: s+r, Eng.. a �l BRIDGE PLAN _ + Z I aYOU.c rw.� LEC PZ, VAULT � 5wgr: Kane B g BRIDGE a pm— t - P0E'�1� = MYbic O I • • • ® \NtE YIJI E ELEV N ELEV A -0.2 ELEVATIONS k HALE Medical Center (Bridge) Bridge with horizontal pickets and IPE decking. L: \JOBS \G1 123 - HALE Medical Center \Marketing \Bridge Elevation HALE MEDICAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1 Conditions of Approval 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 elevator tower at the Methodist Hospital site and pedestrian bridge across Huntington Drive shall be revised as follows: 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 fapade 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. 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- 15 and to construct the improvements in Fiscal Year 2015 -16. The developer has submitted an area sewer study to determine the impact of the project on the sewer system. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the developer must pay a fair share of the construction cost of this sewer project. Based on the area sewer study, this fair share contribution will not exceed 5% of the total project cost. 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. 4. A minimum of 366 parking spaces shall be provided for the medical office project as shown on the Specific Plan document submitted to the City as of May 7, 2013. Except as provided hereafter, the parking spaces shall all be available for unrestricted use by and for purposes of the proposed project. The applicant shall execute and record against the applicant's property an agreement ( "Parking Agreement ") with the owner of the adjacent Racetrack property pursuant to which Santa Anita Park is permitted to use the parking lot on the applicant's property for purposes of Racetrack parking on all Saturdays, Sundays and State and federal holidays, on all weekdays after 6:00 p.m. and on all dates on which a Breeders' Cup or similar special horse racing event is held. The Parking Agreement shall be submitted by the applicant to the City for review and approval of the substance and form thereof prior to execution and recordation thereof by the applicant in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office. The Parking Agreement shall expressly provide, among other provisions, that the Parking Agreement shall not be amended or terminated without the prior written approval by the City. The applicant shall provide proof to the City, by means of a conformed copy of the recorded Parking Agreement and a title report, that following review and approval by the City, the Parking Agreement has thereafter been recorded by the applicant in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office, together with documents evidencing subordination thereto executed by all parties who own an interest in the property which could ripen into a fee interest. The applicant shall not be entitled to issuance by the City of any building permit for the medical office project or any other project on the property until the applicant has first provided the foregoing proof to the City. 5. The applicant shall execute an agreement with the City, in a form and substance approved by the City Manager and approved as to form by the City Attorney, pertaining to an encroachment of the proposed overhead walkway above Huntington Drive from the subject project site to Methodist Hospital. The agreement shall provide, among other matters, that the owner of the subject project site and any and all successors in interest of the owner shall have sole responsibility to repair and maintain the overhead walkway, and shall undertake any and all such repair and maintenance at their cost and expense promptly upon demand by the City. The agreement shall also provide, among other matters, that the owner of the subject project site shall maintain at all times general liability insurance pertaining to the overhead walkway in a form, substance and amount approved by the City Manager, or his /her designee. The agreement shall further provide that such insurance shall be issued by an insurer rated at least A -VII or better in Best's Insurance Guide or any similar rating guide approved by the City, that the insurer shall be admitted by the State of California to issue such insurance policies in California and that by endorsement to the policy, the insurance covers as additional insured parties the City and its officials, officers, employees and agents. The applicant shall obtain for recordation against the subject project site fully executed subordinations to the agreement, in a form and substance approved by the City Manager, from any and all persons or entities who have an interest in the project site which could ripen into a fee interest. The agreement and all subordinations shall be recorded by the applicant in the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder prior to issuance by the City of any building permit for the proposed project, and the applicant shall provide evidence of such recordation to the City in a form deemed acceptable by the City Manager and City Attorney. Prior to commencement of construction of such overhead walkway, the applicant shall provide to the City's Development Services Director plans and specifications for the overhead walkway, including without limitation architectural design, for approval by the Development Services Director. The overhead walkway shall be constructed in accordance with such plans and specifications. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval by the City Manager, or his /her designee , an agreement between the owner of the subject project site and Methodist Hospital pursuant to which among other matters, the Hospital agrees, on behalf of itself and its successors in interest (other than the City), to permit the overhead walkway to be constructed, in relevant part, on the property on which the Hospital is located. The agreement between the owner of the subject project site and the Hospital shall be in a form and substance approved by the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney, and shall provide among other matters that the agreement shall not be terminated without prior written consent of the City. 6. 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. 7. 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 structures may be subject to the issuance of permits after having fully detailed plans submitted to the City for plan check review and approval. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Approval of these applications shall not become effective until the property owner(s) and applicant(s) have executed and filed with the Development Services Department an Acceptance Form to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. ORDINANCE NO. 2308 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT OF THE ARCADIA ZONING CODE; AND AMENDING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY FROM "S -1, SPECIAL USES ", TO "SP -SA1, SPECIFIC PLAN SANTA ANITA 1", WITH RESPECT TO THE HALE MEDICAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia, as a function of its regulatory authority, is empowered, under Arcadia Municipal Code, Section 9293.1 et seq. to amend the text of its Zoning Code (Arcadia Municipal Code, Title 9) and to amend the zoning designations of land within the City, by adoption of an ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Hale Corporation submitted applications for the following land use entitlements on an approximately 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park property: a Specific Plan (Application No. SP 13 -01), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 13 -01), a Zone Change (ZC 13 -01), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 13 -01), and Architectural Design Review (ADR 13 -04) for a four -story, 70,096 square foot medical office development (the Hale Medical Center) at 289 West Huntington Drive (the "Project "; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the adoption of the Specific Plan, along with all other applications identified above, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1869 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 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 as recommended by the Development Services Department and subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on said applications, including the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MMRP, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the associated staff report is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the City Council, based upon the entire record, including all written and oral evidence presented, finds with respect to the proposed Zone Change, the following: (i) the proposed Zone Change (ZC 13 -01) is consistent and compatible with the City's General Plan, as amended, as well as the goals, objectives, policies and action programs of the City's General Plan, as amended; (ii) the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the Hale Medical Center Specific Plan. The zoning change made by this Ordinance adds a Specific Plan zoning 2 designation to the Arcadia Municipal Code in order to incorporate the regulations of the Specific Plan into the Arcadia Municipal Code. To the extent that the zoning is changed, this is intended to designate a land use within the project site in such a way as to facilitate development of the Project in the manner called for in the Specific Plan; and (iii) the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, justify the proposed Zone Change. The General Plan has articulated the City's vision of what kind of project(s) will serve the public necessity, convenience and welfare for future development of the Project area. A project of the type set forth in the Specific Plan implements those General Plan policies and goals, and the proposed Zone Change, as set forth in this Ordinance, implements the Specific Plan. As such, the proposed Zone Change, as set forth in this Ordinance, demonstrates the good zoning practice of the City, consistent with the City's General Plan. SECTION 3. Based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the City Council finds that a Mitigated Negative Declaration and the associated MMRP is appropriate for this Project and there will be less than significant impacts on the environment as a result of the Project per the California Environmental Quality Act as further described in the Initial Environmental Study. SECTION 4. Section 9231.21.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: "9231.21.1 SP -SA1 —SPECIFIC PLAN -SANTA ANITA 1" SECTION 5: Section 9231.21.2 and Section 9231.21.3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code are hereby deleted. SECTION 6. Section 9297 of the Arcadia I Municipal Code is hereby amended to read: 3 "9297 PURPOSE AND INTENT Specific Plan Santa Anita 1 is a planning tool to guide development and design of the Hale- Medical Center building and includes the zoning designation of SP- SA1. Regulations and design elements for the SP -SA1 zone, with related implementing actions, are set forth in Ordinance 2307 adopting Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1 for the Hale Medical Center." SECTION 7. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves Zone Change 13 -01 for Specific Plan — Santa Anita 1 from "S -1" to "SP -SA1" as set forth in Sections 4 and 6 and the zoning map attached hereto as Exhibit "A ". The Official Zoning Map of the City shall be amended accordingly and incorporated by reference into this Ordinance. SECTION 8. Severability. if any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases may be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of same to be published at least once in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall take effect on the thirty -first (31S) day after its adoption. [SIGNATURES ON THE NEXT PAGE] CI Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2013. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 9N4k- P b Step en P. Deitsch City Attorney 5 Mayor of City of Arcadia EXHIBIT "A" ZONING MAP Santo Anita Park Ord. 2308 6 r�� ) -- 0 zz LLJ �P:I:b� art rent Q) A� 0 Santa Anita County Golf Course CAMPUS DR RESOLUTION NO. 6865 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GPA 13 -01 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AT 289 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE FROM "SANTA ANITA PARK COMMERCIAL (0.3 FAR)" TO "COMMERCIAL (0.5 FAR) ". WHEREAS, local governments are authorized by Government Code Section 65350 et seq. to prepare, adopt and amend general plans; and WHEREAS, the Arcadia Municipal Code provides that the adoption or amendment of any General Plan within the City shall be accomplished by resolution; and WHEREAS, the Hale Corporation submitted an application for the following land use entitlements on an approximately 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park property: a Specific Plan (Application No. SP 13 -01), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 13 -01), a Zone Change (ZC 13 -01), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 13 -01), and Architectural Design Review for a four - story, 70,096 square foot medical office development (the Hale Medical Center) at 289 West Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the adoption of the General Plan Amendment, along with all other applications identified above, including a Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1869 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 13 -01, Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 13 -01, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13- 1 01, Zone Change No. ZC 13 -01, and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04 as recommended by the Development Services Department and subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on said applications, including the Negative Declaration, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the associated staff report is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such area or vicinity because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01, and the Amendment is consistent with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan. SECTION 3. Based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the City Council finds that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project and there will be less than significant impacts on the environment as a result of the project as further described in the Initial Environmental Study. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 13 -01. 2 SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of _ , 2013. Mayor of City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: RKg�� t -1 41�� Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 6866 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13 -04 FOR A FOUR - STORY, 70,096 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AT 289 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, the Hale Corporation submitted an application for the following land use entitlements on an approximately 4.25 acre portion of the Santa Anita Park property: a Specific Plan (Application No. SP 13 -01), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 13-01), a Zone Change (ZC 13 -01), a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 13 -01), and Architectural Design Review for a four -story, 70,096 square foot medical office development (the Hale Medical Center) at 289 West Huntington Drive; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on the adoption of the Architectural Design, along with all other applications identified above, including a Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1869 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan No. 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 as recommended by the Development Services Department and subject to certain conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on May 7, 2013 a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City Council on said applications, including the Negative Declaration, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and 1 WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occu rred . NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the associated staff report is true and correct. SECTION 2. That the approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such area or vicinity because the Initial Study did not disclose any substantial adverse effects to the area affected by the project, and the design is consistent with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan. SECTION 3. Based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the City Council finds that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for this project and there will be less than significant impacts on the environment as a result of the project as further described in the Initial Environmental Study. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby approves Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13 -04. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] 2 Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2013. Mayor of City of Arcadia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney