HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4b: Purchase and Sale Agreement - RusnakSTAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: May 21, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council acting as the Successor Agency to the
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
By: Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS, DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIONS, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SALE OF
21 MORLAN PLACE, 101 -111 NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE, 121 -159
NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE, AND ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 5775-
025 -908 BY THE CITY OF ARCADIA AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY
TO THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA TO THE PAUL P. RUSNAK FAMILY TRUST, FOR THE
EXPANSION OF RUSNAK MERCEDES BENZ
Recommendation: Approve Negative Declaration, Purchase and Sale
Agreement and Escrow Instructions, and Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions
SUMMARY
Rusnak Mercedes Benz and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency (Agency) have been
working to expand the dealership since 2001. The Agency assembled an approximate
1.95 acre site in 2010 and 2011 for expansion of the dealership on Santa Anita Avenue.
Agreements in 2011 and 2012 were stalled first by the State's elimination of
redevelopment and then by new legislation that created the requirement to development
a Long Range Property Management Plan before selling any real estate holdings.
Arcadia's Long Range Plan was approved on April 4, 2013. Since that time, the City, as
Successor Agency, and Rusnak have worked quickly to reach agreement on a
Purchase and Sale Agreement (Agreement) and Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC &Rs) to sell the four adjoining properties for expansion of the Mercedes
Benz dealership. Those two documents, and a Negative Environmental Declaration
have been completed. If approved by the Successor Agency, the Agreement and
CC &Rs would then be presented to the Oversight Board and the DOF before they can
be implemented.
Purchase and Sale Agreement — Rusnak
May 21, 2013
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Rusnak started selling cars in Arcadia in 2000. Starting in 2001, Rusnak and the
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency (Agency) began efforts to expand the dealership. It
was listed as the highest priority in Agency documents going back to 2002. In 2004, the
Agency and Rusnak approved a Land Assembly and Development Agreement (LADA)
that would have allowed Rusnak to expand the Mercedes Benz dealership along
Huntington Drive. The Agency purchased the Arcadia Self Storage property in 2006
and 21 Morlan Place in 2008 as part of implementing the LADA. However, the Agency
was unable to acquire the additional properties and the LADA was never fully
implemented.
In 2008, Rusnak and the Agency entered into two leases, one to use the parking lot at
21 Morlan Place to store cars, and a second to use the basement and ground floor of
Arcadia Self Storage for the Parts Department. Rusnak continues to lease both
properties.
In 2010, the Agency directed that efforts be made to acquire the two commercial
properties on Santa Anita Avenue to combine with 21 Morlan Place to assemble a 1.95
acre parcel with frontage on Santa Anita Avenue. The final parcel, the Dahlgren
property on Santa Clara Street, was purchased in 2011. During 2011, the Agency and
Rusnak negotiated the terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) to
sell the 1.95 acre site for the expansion of Rusnak Mercedes Benz, including a new
showroom with Santa Anita Avenue frontage. In August 2011, the State Supreme Court
put a freeze on new redevelopment agreements before the DDA could be scheduled for
City Council consideration.
In July 2012, Rusnak signed a Purchase and Sale Agreement, the first step toward a
post - redevelopment, market rate land transaction that would lead to the expanded
dealership and the new showroom. When AB 1484 was approved by the legislature in
June 2012, it again stopped these efforts. AB 1484 required a new document, called a
Long Range Property Management Plan (Plan), to be prepared by the Successor
Agency to guide the disposition of former Agency properties. The Plan could only be
submitted to the Department of Finance (DOF) after certain other steps were
completed. The Arcadia Successor Agency drafted its Long Range Plan in advance of
the timelines identified in AB 1484. After approval of the Plan by the City Council,
acting as the Successor Agency, and the Oversight Board, the Long Range Plan was
submitted to the DOF on January 17, 2013. The DOF began its review of the Long
Range Plan on February 11. On April 4, the DOF submitted a letter approving the Long
Range Plan. The approval required that any real estate transactions be submitted to
the Oversight Board and to the DOF. Nonetheless, the approval provided the
opportunity to restart negotiations with Rusnak about expansion of the dealership.
Purchase and Sale Agreement — Rusnak
May 21, 2013
Page 3
DISCUSSION
On April 12, 2013, Paul Rusnak signed a new Purchase and Sale Agreement
( "Agreement ") (attached) that, like previous agreements, would have him purchasing the
four properties and building a new showroom on Santa Anita Avenue. Rusnak would
purchase the properties for $2,830,311. The new construction would have a value of at
least $10 million, with construction finishing within 18 months of receiving a building
permit. The Successor Agency would be required to demolish the two Santa Anita
Avenue buildings. The Successor Agency approved the demolition contract at the May
7 City Council meeting. Abatement work, as a first step toward demolition, will begin in
the next few weeks.
The Agreement requires the dealership to continue to sell and lease new and used
Mercedes Benz vehicles for ten (10) years after receiving a final Certificate of
Occupancy. Rusnak is required to generate at least $800,000 in annual sales tax to the
City of Arcadia for ten years. This threshold has been used through the previous
agreements.
A companion document, also signed by Rusnak, is the Covenants, Conditions, and
Restrictions (CC &Rs). The CC &Rs further detail the obligations of the Successor
Agency and Rusnak. It enumerates the process for the Successor Agency to collect
liquidated damages if Rusnak constructs improvements that are less than $10 million in
value, and /or if Rusnak does not meet the $800,000 sales tax threshold in any one year.
There is a section that obligates Rusnak to complete public improvements as part of the
project. The CC &Rs require the Successor Agency to expedite the entitlement and plan
check processes. It also provides the Successor Agency sole discretion to approve or
reject an effort by Rusnak to sell the dealership to an entity that is not affiliated with his
family, or a request to change the manufacturer of vehicles that can be sold at the
dealership from Mercedes Benz. While the CC &Rs necessarily protect the City and
Successor Agency, the expectation is that Rusnak will successfully build and operate
the expanded dealership, and that it will be very good for Rusnak and the City of
Arcadia.
If the Purchase and Sale Agreement and CC &Rs are approved, they will be presented
to the Oversight Board and then forwarded to the Department of Finance (DOF) for final
approval. Since the terms of the deal are the same as those described in the Long
Range Property Management Plan, the DOF review should be fairly brief. The
proceeds of the land sale will be shared with the taxing entities, including the City of
Arcadia.
Purchase and Sale Agreement — Rusnak
May 21, 2013
Page 4
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
An Initial Study was conducted based on the project description and site plan provided
by Rusnak. It was determined that a Negative Declaration was appropriate for this
project. These steps were completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Notice of the environmental review for this project was published
in the Arcadia Weekly. The Initial Study and Negative Declaration are attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will benefit from the $2,830,311 generated by the land sale. The proceeds of
the land sale will be shared with the affected taxing entities, which include the City. The
City's will receive approximately 9.5% of any proceeds as well as the same portion of
any future property tax values. Assuming $10 million in improvements are made, the
taxable value of the property will be $12.8 million upon build out. As such, the City
would receive approximately $12,200 per year in additional property taxes annually.
Sales tax from the expanded dealership will accrue to the City during the ten years that
it is required to be open and operating. At the minimum threshold of $800,000 in sales
taxes received, the total 10 -year value will be approximately $8,390,500 in General
Fund revenues. The table below summarizes the total anticipated revenues.
Anticipated City Revenue
(in present dollars)
Revenue
Basis
One Year Value
10 Year Value
Land Sale (one -time)
9.5% of $2,830,311
$268,880
$268,880
New Property Taxes
$12.8 million in value x 1 %
property tax rate x 9.5% City
Share
$12,160
$121,600
Sales Taxes
$800,000 minimum
$800,000
$8,000,000
Total
$1,081,040
$8,390,480
Purchase and Sale Agreement — Rusnak
May 21, 2013
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Negative Declaration, Purchase and Sale
Instructions, and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and
P. Rusnak Family Trust for the expansion of Rusnak Mercede
Approvod:
Dominic Lazzar t
City Manager
Agreement and Escrow
Restrictions with the Paul
s Benz.
Attachment: Purchase and Sale Agreement
Initial Environmental Study and Negative Declaration
AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE
AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
Design Escrow Escrow No:
128 East Huntington Drive, Suite B
Arcadia, CA 91006
Attention: Shelley Malicek
( "Escrow Holder ")
THIS AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
( "Agreement ") is dated for reference purposes as of this i 2 day of April, 2013, by and
between the CITY OF ARCADIA AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a public entity ( "Seller"), and PAUL P. RUSNAK FAMILY
TRUST or nominee ( "Buyer"). This Agreement is made with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. Seller is the Successor Agency ( "Agency ") to the Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency ( "RDA "). Buyer owns or controls ownership of a Mercedes Benz automobile
dealership located at 55 West Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia ( "City "), Los Angeles
County, California ( "Dealership ").
B. Commencing in 2004, RDA and Buyer negotiated a Land Acquisition and
Development Agreement which anticipated expansion of the Dealership. RDA subsequently
acquired title to various parcels located in the immediate vicinity of the Dealership, as more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and are hereafter collectively referred to as
the "Agency Property." Negotiations regarding conveyance of the Agency Property to Buyer
were most recently memorialized in a draft Disposition and Development Agreement prepared
by the RDA and dated June, 2011.
C. Recent California legislation has resulted in the disestablishment of the RDA.
The sale and conveyance of the Agency Property to Buyer will now require approval by Seller's
oversight board ( "Oversight Board") and the California Department of Finance ( "DOF "), all as
more particularly described herein.
D. Prior negotiations between Buyer and RDA anticipated the acquisition of the
Agency Property by Buyer in order to increase the size of the Dealership, the effect of which will
be to significantly increase and maximize receipt by all affected public entities of enhanced
property tax and sales tax revenues, including the enhancement of values and development
potential of other real property proximate to the Dealership and the Agency Property. Buyer and
Seller acknowledge this continued purpose of the sale and conveyance of the Agency Property to
Buyer.
24347.0080117494436.5 1
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Purchase and Sale. Upon the terms and conditions described below, Buyer agrees
to purchase and Seller agrees to sell and convey the Agency Property to Buyer.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Agency Property Two Million Eight
Hundred Thirty Thousand Three Hundred Eleven Dollars ($2,830,311.00) ( "Purchase Price ").
3. Payment of Purchase Price. Buyer will pay the Purchase Price to Seller through
Escrow as follows:
3.1 Deposit. Within two (2) business days following the Opening Date (as
defined herein), Buyer will deposit with Escrow Holder the sum of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($100,000.00) ( "Deposit ") in immediately available funds. Escrow Holder will place
the Deposit in an interest bearing account, with interest to accrue for the benefit of Buyer. All
references herein to the "Deposit" will include interest accrued thereon.
3.2 Balance of Purchase Price. Not later than one (1) business day prior to
CIosing, Buyer shall deposit with Escrow Holder in immediately available funds the balance of
the Purchase Price, together with such other amounts as may be required in order to pay Buyer's
share of closing costs and prorations.
3.3 Aynlication of Deposit. If Buyer does not terminate this Agreement prior
to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period (defined below), the Deposit will become
nonrefundable except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement. Upon Close of
Escrow, the Deposit will be credited against the Purchase Price. If Buyer terminates this
Agreement prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, the Deposit will be returned to
Buyer. If, following Buyer's election to proceed with this transaction beyond the expiration of
the Due Diligence Period, Escrow fails to close through no fault of Seller, Seller will retain the
Deposit as liquidated damages pursuant to Section 8.2 below.
4. Title.
4.1 Preliminary Title Report. Upon execution of this Agreement by both
parties, Seller will order from Fidelity National Title Company (through its Los Angeles,
California office — "Title Company ") a preliminary title report, together with legible copies of
all title exception documents described therein (collectively the "Report"). Within ten (10)
business days after Buyer's receipt of the Report, Buyer may object, by written notice to Seller,
to any title exceptions which Buyer determines are unacceptable, in Buyer's sole discretion
( "Disapproved Exceptions "). Seller may thereafter elect, at its option and at its sole cost and
expense, either to eliminate such Disapproved Exceptions prior to or at Closing or not to do so.
If Seller is unable or unwilling to eliminate any such Disapproved Exceptions, Buyer may elect
to terminate this Agreement, in which case the Deposit will be returned to Buyer. Alternatively,
Buyer may elect to waive any such Disapproved Exceptions and accept title to the Agency
Property subject to such matters. Those title exceptions not objected to by Buyer will be deemed
"Permitted Exceptions ", which shall also include the lien of non - delinquent real property taxes
and assessments (including any supplemental taxes resulting from Buyer's acquisition of the
24347.0080117494436.5 2
Agency Property), the CC &Rs (as defined in Section 9.3 below) and other matters affecting the
condition of title created by or with the consent of Buyer.
4.2 Title Policy. At Close of Escrow (as defined below), Seller will convey
good and marketable title to the Agency Property to Buyer as evidenced by a CLTA Standard
Form Owners Policy of Title Insurance ( "Title Policy "), issued by the Title Company in an
amount equal to the Purchase Price, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions.
5. Due Diligence.
5.1 Due Diligence Period. As used in this Agreement, the term "Due
Diligence Period" means the period commencing on the Opening Date (as defined herein) and
expiring sixty (60) days thereafter, except as described in Section 5.5 below.
5.2 Inspections. During the Due Diligence Period, with reasonable advance
written notice (no less than forty -eight (48) hours) to Seller, which written notice shall describe
in reasonable detail the nature and scope of Buyer's proposed inspections, Buyer, its agents,
representatives and consultants may enter onto the Agency Property during reasonable business
hours to perform inspections and tests of the Agency Property. All such tests and inspections
will be at Buyer's sole cost.
5.3 Restoration. After performing such tests and inspections, Buyer shall
promptly restore the Agency Property to the condition that existed prior to such tests and
inspections (which obligation will survive the Closing or any termination of this Agreement).
Buyer shall keep the Agency Property free from all liens, and shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless Seller and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the "Seller Parties "), from
and against all claims, actions, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and costs) incurred, suffered by, or claimed against Seller Parties, or any of them,
by reason of any damage to the Agency Property or injury to persons caused by Buyer and/or its
agents, representatives or consultants in exercising its rights under this Section 5. The foregoing
provisions will survive the Closing or any termination of this Agreement.
5.4 Buyer's Right to Terminate During Due Diligence Period. At any time
prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer may terminate this Agreement in its
sole and absolute discretion by delivering to Seller and Escrow Holder written notice of such
termination. If Buyer terminates this Agreement in accordance with this Section, Escrow Holder
shall return the Deposit to Buyer, less Seller's share of any title and escrow cancellation fees as
set forth in Section 7.9 below. If Buyer fails to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration
of the Due Diligence Period in accordance with the provisions of this Section, Buyer will be
deemed to have approved the Agency Property and waived its right to terminate the Agreement
under this Section.
5.5 Land Use Approvals. The Due Diligence Period may be extended by
written notice from Buyer to Seller for up to three (3) additional of thirty (30) days each solely
with respect to the obtaining by Buyer of those land use approvals that may be required by the
City in order for the Agency Property to be used as an expansion of the Dealership. Those land
use approvals may include the issuance of a conditional use permit but will not include site plan
24347.00801\74W36.5 3
approval, building permits or similar approvals incident to the actual construction of Dealership
improvements on the Agency Property. As to all matters of due diligence other than land use
approvals, the Due Diligence Period will be as set forth in Section 5.1 above. If Buyer is unable
to obtain necessary land use approvals within the Due Diligence Period as it may be extended
pursuant to the terms of this Section 5.5, Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
in the same manner as set forth in Section 5.4 above. For avoidance of doubt, the sixty (60) day
Due Diligence Period shall apply to all due diligence matters other than receipt of land use
approvals. Buyer's right to extend the Due Diligence Period and terminate this Agreement
pursuant to Section 5.4 following expiration of this initial sixty (60) day period will be available
only with respect to land use approvals.
5.6 Seller Material. Within five (5) business days following the Opening
Date, Seller will provide or otherwise make available to Buyer copies of certain due diligence
material regarding the Agency Property ( "Seller Material"). The Seller Material may include
title reports or policies, environmental reports and similar reports of investigations prepared for
the benefit of Seller. All Seller Material will be provided to Buyer without warranty or
representation regarding the accuracy or completeness of such information, it being understood
that the Seller Material has been prepared by third party consultants.
6. As Is Acceptance of Agency Property. Buyer acknowledges that prior to Close of
Escrow, it will have had the opportunity to conduct such tests and evaluations as it deems
reasonably necessary in order to investigate the condition of the Agency Property, including its
environmental status. Buyer acknowledges that it is acquiring the Agency Property in its "as is"
condition with no warranty or representation from Seller regarding the physical condition of the
Agency Property, its environmental condition or its suitability for Buyer's intended purposes.
Buyer acknowledges that it is acquiring the Agency Property based solely in reliance on its own
inspections and examination and its own evaluation of the Agency Property. Buyer agrees that
no representations, statements or warranties have at any time been made by Seller or its agents
regarding the physical condition of the Agency Property except as may be contained in this
Agreement. Buyer acknowledges that there may be conditions affecting the Agency Property
unknown to Buyer that may adversely affect its value or use for Buyer's intended purposes.
Buyer nevertheless waives any rights or recourse it may have with respect to such unknown
conditions and any damage, loss, costs or expense related thereto, including rights accruing
under California Civil Code § 1542, which provides:
"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him or her must have
materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor."
Buyer acknowledges that it has either consulted with or had an opportunity to consult
with legal counsel regarding the above waiver. The provisions of this Section 6 will survive
Close of Escrow.
0 -
Buyer Initials
2434'.0080117494436.5 4
7. Escrow.
7.1 Escrow Instructions. This Agreement shall constitute instructions of
Buyer and Seller to Design Escrow which is hereby named as the Escrow Holder for this
purchase and sale. ( "Escrow Holder "). Escrow Holder is located at 128 East Huntington Drive,
Suite B, Arcadia, California 91006. The parties agree to execute such additional pro forma
instructions as Escrow Holder may reasonably require, however, in the event of a conflict, the
terms and provisions of this Agreement shall govern.
7.2 Opening of Escrow. Upon execution of this Agreement, Buyer and Seller
shall cause an escrow to be opened with Escrow Holder by depositing with Escrow Holder a
fully executed copy of this Agreement. Escrow shall be deemed opened as of the date this
Agreement is deposited with Escrow Holder ( "Opening of Escrow" and the date thereof, the
"Opening Date ").
7.3 Close of Escrow; Closing Date. "Close of Escrow" shall mean the date
on which the Grant Deed conveying title from Seller to Buyer is recorded in the Official Records
of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California. The form of the Grant Deed will be
as set forth in Exhibit `B" attached hereto. Provided that this Agreement is not earlier
terminated pursuant to the terms and provisions hereof, and provided that all of the conditions
precedent to the Close of Escrow set forth in this Agreement have been approved or waived as
herein provided, Escrow shall close on or before thirty (30) days following expiration of the Due
Diligence Period ( "Closing Date "), as that period may have been extended pursuant to Section
5.5 above. Seller may terminate this Agreement if Seller has performed its obligations
hereunder, and failure to close Escrow results from a material default by Buyer. Buyer may
terminate this Agreement if Buyer has performed its obligations hereunder, and failure to close
Escrow results from a material default by Seller. By causing the Close of Escrow to occur,
Escrow Holder shall be deemed to have irrevocably committed to cause the Title Company to
issue the Title Policy. If the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California is closed on the
last day for closing escrow, then the parties agree that Escrow Holder shall have until the next
day the Recorder is open to record the Grant Deed and close escrow.
7.4 Documents and Funds from Buyer. Not later than one (1) business day
prior to the Closing Date, Buyer will deliver or will assure that the following documents and
funds have been delivered to Escrow Holder:
(a) Purchase Price. The Purchase Price, as described in Section 2
above.
(b) PrelimLnM Change of Ownership Statement. A Preliminary
Change of Ownership Statement or in lieu thereof, the appropriate fee, to be provided to the
Recorder's office at Close of Escrow.
(c) CC&Rs. A fully executed and acknowledged counterpart of the
CC&Rs (as defined in Section 9.3 below).
(d) Other Sums and Documents. All other sums and documents
required by Escrow Holder according to this Agreement to carry out and close the Escrow.
24347.0080117494436.5 5
7.5 Documents and Funds from Seller. Not later than one (1) business day
prior to the Closing Date, Seller will deliver or will assure that the following documents and
funds have been delivered to Escrow Holder:
(a) Grant Deed. A fully executed and acknowledged Grant Deed
conveying the Agency Property to Buyer, or Buyer's nominee in fee simple.
(b) FIRPTA Affidavit. Original affidavits, using Escrow Holder's
standard forms, certifying that Seller and this transaction are not subject to the withholding
requirements of the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act and equivalent California
legislation.
(c) CC &Rs. A fully executed and acknowledged counterpart of the
CC &Rs.
(d) Other Sums and Documents. All other documents and sums
required by Escrow Holder according to this Agreement to carry out the Escrow.
7.6 Conditions to the Close of Escrow. The following conditions, for the
benefit of Seller and Buyer respectively, must be satisfied or waived (in writing, by the party
benefited thereby) in order for Escrow to close:
(a) Seller's Obli ag tion. Seller's obligation to sell the Agency Property
to Buyer is contingent on the following:
(i) Buyer shall have delivered the Purchase Price, less any
credits described in this Agreement, for the Agency
Property.
(ii) Buyer shall have timely performed all other obligations of
Buyer under this Agreement.
(iii) Receipt of the approvals described in subparagraph (e)
below.
In the event that any of the foregoing conditions have not occurred
or been satisfied or waived by the Closing Date, Seller shall be entitled to terminate this
:agreement and, subject to the provisions of Section 7.9 below, any funds deposited by Buyer
and any interest thereon will be returned to Buyer.
(b) Buyer's Obli ag tion. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Agency
Property is contingent on the following:
(i) Buyer shall have approved or shall be deemed to have
approved the Preliminary Title Report for the Agency
Property pursuant to Section 4.1.
24347M841174W36.5 6
(ii) Seller shall have delivered insured title to the Agency
Property on the terms required by Section 4.
(iii) No loss or damage to the Agency Property shall have
occurred which would permit Buyer to terminate this
Agreement pursuant to the provisions herein below.
(iv) Buyer shall have obtained from the City those land use
approvals (which may include a conditional use permit)
sufficient to allow the Agency Property to be used for
Dealership purposes.
(v) Seller shall have performed all of its other obligations
under this Agreement.
(vi) Receipt of the approvals described in subparagraph (e)
below.
In the event that any of the foregoing conditions have not occurred
or been satisfied or waived by the date(s) specified, Buyer shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement and, subject to the provisions of Section 7.9 below, any funds deposited by Buyer
and any interest thereon will be returned to Buyer.
(c) DeliveEy of Sums and Documents. Both parties have deposited
with Escrow Holder all sums and documents required by this Agreement.
(d) Title Policy. The Title Company is prepared to issue the Title
Policy to Buyer with title as described in Section 4.1 above.
(e) Oversight Board/DOF Approval. As a result of the legislation
described in Recital Paragraph C above, Seller has submitted to the DOF a Long Range Property
Management Plan ( "Plan ") for the disposition of real property owned by Seller, which Plan has
been approved by the DOF. As required by the Plan, sale and conveyance of the Agency
Property in accordance with this Agreement will require approval by the Oversight Board and
the DOR Upon execution of this Agreement by both parties, Seller will initiate procedures to
obtain such approval by DOF. Approval of this transaction and this Agreement by the Oversight
Board and DOF is a condition precedent to the obligations of both Buyer and Seller hereunder.
7.7 Closing Procedure. Upon receipt of all funds and instruments described in
this Section 7, and upon satisfaction or waiver of all contingencies and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, Escrow Holder shall:
(a) Record the CC &Rs and the Grant Deed. Record the CC&Rs and
the Grant Deed (in that order) in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California.
(b) Title Policy. Cause the Title Policy to be issued.
(c) Purchase Price. Deliver the Purchase Price to Seller.
1ANT00801174W36.5 7
7.8 Electronic /Counterpart Documents. In the event Buyer or Seller utilizes
"facsimile" or other electronically transmitted signed documents, the parties hereby agree to
accept and instruct Escrow Holder to rely upon such documents as if they bore original
signatures. Buyer and Seller hereby agree, if requested by Escrow Holder, to provide to Escrow
Holder within seventy -two (72) hours after transmission, such documents bearing the original
signatures. Buyer and Seller further acknowledge and agree that electronically transmitted
documents bearing non - original signatures will not be accepted for recording and that the parties
will provide originally executed documents to Escrow Holder for such purpose. Escrow Holder
is authorized to utilize documents which have been signed by Buyer and Seller in counterparts.
7.9 Costs of Escrow. At Closing, Buyer and Seller will each pay one -half of
Escrow Holder's fee, Seller will pay the costs and expenses associated with the Title Policy and
other costs will be allocated by Escrow Holder in accordance with common escrow practices in
Los Angeles County. If this Agreement and the Escrow created hereunder are terminated prior
to Closing and not as a result of a default by either party, any title and escrow cancellation fees
will be shared equally by Buyer and Seller. If Escrow fails to close as a result of a default by
either party hereunder, the defaulting party will be solely liable for any such escrow and title
cancellation fees. Escrow Holder is authorized to withhold any such cancellation fees in
accordance with this section from funds on deposit with Escrow Holder by the party responsible
for such payment.
7.10 Agency Property Taxes and Assessments. Under Seller's ownership, the
Agency Property has not been subject to real property taxes or assessments. At Closing, Buyer
will become liable for all real property taxes and assessments allocable to the Agency Property
after Closing.
7.11 Brokers' Commissions. The parties acknowledge that they have not
engaged any broker, agent or finder in connection with the transaction described in this
Agreement. Each of the parties shall indemnify, defend, and hold the other party harmless from
any and all loss, damage, liability or expense, including costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
which the other party may incur or sustain by reason of or in connection with any
misrepresentation or breach of warranty by the indemnifying party with respect to the foregoing.
Each party will bear any commissions or brokers' fees which are based upon their action.
7.12 Re ort to IRS. After Close of Escrow and prior to the last date on which
such report is required to be filed with Internal Revenue Service ( "IRS "), and if such report is
required pursuant to Section 6045(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, Escrow Holder shall report
The gross proceeds of the purchase and sale of the Agency Property to the IRS on Form 1099 -B,
W -9 or such other form(s) as may be specified by the IRS pursuant to said Section 6045(e).
Concurrently with such filing, Escrow Holder shall deliver a copy thereof to Buyer and Seller.
8. Remedies for Default.
8.1 Seller Default. If Seller defaults under this Agreement, Buyer may, at its
option, terminate this Agreement (in which case the Deposit will be returned by Escrow Holder
to Seller) or initiate an action for specific performance of this Agreement.
24347.00801 \7494436.5
8.2 Buyer Default. IF BUYER DEFAULTS IN ITS OBLIGATION TO
CLOSE THE PURCHASE OF THE AGENCY PROPERTY, SELLER SHALL RETAIN THE
DEPOSIT AS FULL, AGREED AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, AND SELLER'S
RETENTION OF THE DEPOSIT IS SELLER'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH BUYER DEFAULT. THE PARTIES HERETO EXPRESSLY AGREE
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT BY BUYER IN ITS
OBLIGATION TO CLOSE THE PURCHASE OF THE AGENCY PROPERTY ON THE
CLOSING DATE, SELLER'S ACTUAL DAMAGES WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT
OR IMPRACTICABLE TO ASCERTAIN, THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE DEPOSIT
REPRESENTS THE PARTIES' REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SUCH DAMAGES, AND
THAT SUCH AMOUNT IS NOT UNREASONABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES
EXISTING AT THE TIME THIS AGREEMENT WAS MADE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE
GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING: (1) SELLER WILL INCUR ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS IN THE NEGOTIATION AND REVIEW OF THIS AGREEMENT AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THIS TRANSACTION, AND WILL INCUR DAMAGES BY
WITHDRAWING THE AGENCY PROPERTY FROM THE OPEN MARKET; (2) CERTAIN
COSTS AND OTHER DAMAGES IN AN AMOUNT SUBSTANTIALLY IN EXCESS OF
THE DEPOSIT MAY BE INCURRED BY SELLER IF THE SALE OF THE AGENCY
PROPERTY CONTEMPLATED HEREBY IS NOT COMPLETED; AND (3) SELLER IS
ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT WITH BUYER IN RELIANCE UPON BUYER'S
COMMITMENT TO PURCHASE THE AGENCY PROPERTY FROM SELLER. THE
PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT INTENDED AS A
FORFEITURE OR PENALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTIONS 3275 OR 3369, BUT IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES TO SELLER PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1671,
1676 AND 1677. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED
IN THIS SECTION 8.2, THIS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION IS NOT INTENDED
AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED OR CONSTRUED TO LIMIT IN ANY WAY BUYER'S
INDEMNITY, RESTORATION OR CONFIDENTIALITY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT.
SELLER'S INITIALS: BUYER'S INITIALS:
9. Post - Closing Obligations, Use of Agency Property. Buyer and Seller
acknowledge that following Close of Escrow, they will have the following obligations with
respect to each other and the Agency Property:
9.1 Seller Obligations. Prior to or following Close of Escrow (at Seller's
election), Seller will demolish and remove existing structures and improvements located on the
Agency Property. Seller will be solely responsible for demolition costs. All such activities will
be conducted and completed in accordance with applicable laws, permits and approvals. Buyer
hereby grants to Seller, effective as of Close of Escrow, a right of access to the Agency Property
in order to conduct the above activities. Seller covenants and agrees that the Agency Property
will not be subjected to any mechanics liens or similar claims with respect to the above activities.
Seller will cause Buyer to be named as an additional insured on public liability coverage carried
by Seller and/or any contractors conducting demolition activities on Seller's behalf for
demolition activities occurring following Close of Escrow. Seller will defend, indemnify and
24347.0080117494436.5 9
hold Buyer free and harmless from and against any and all claims, damages and liabilities
resulting from Seller's exercise of the right of entry described herein.
9.2 Buyer Obligations. Buyer covenants and agrees that following Close of
Escrow and completion by Seller of the demolition activities described in Section 9.1 above,
Buyer will construct improvements on the Agency Property having a value of not less than Ten
Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00), allowing use of the Agency Property, as improved, for
expansion of the Dealership. Buyer further covenants and agrees that it will continue to operate
the Dealership as a Mercedes Benz dealership from its existing location (including the Agency
Property) and to cause the City to remain a point of sale for all automobile sales from the
Dealership for a period of not less than ten (10) years following the date upon which a Certificate
of Occupancy is issued for the Dealership improvements constructed on the Agency Property
(and if more than one Certificate of Occupancy is issued, from the date of the last such
Certificate of Occupancy). Buyer acknowledges that expansion of the Dealership may require
that portions of the Agency Property be dedicated for or otherwise subject to public
improvements such as sidewalk and street improvements.
9.3 Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Buyer and Seller agree that the
obligations described in this Section 9 will be further memorialized in a Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( "CC &R.s "), to be recorded concurrent with Close of
Escrow. The form of such CC&Rs will be agreed upon prior to expiration of the Due Diligence
Period and if not agreed upon, this Agreement may be terminated by either Parry.
10. Notices. Any and all notices required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be
in writing and shall be personally delivered, sent by recognized overnight delivery service or
mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the parties at
the addresses indicated below:
To Seller: City of Arcadia as Successor Agency to the
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91066
Attn: City Manager
Copy to: Best Best & Krieger LLP
2855 East Guasti Road, Suite 400
Ontario, CA 91761
Attn: Stephen P. Deitsch, Esq.
To Buyer: Paul P. Rusnak Family Trust
c/o Rusnak Group
267 -337 West Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attn: Paul P. Rusnak
24347.00801 \7494436.5 10
Copy to: Rusnak Group
267 -337 West Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91105
Attn: Victoria Rusnak, Esq.
To Title Fidelity National Title Company
Company: 915 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1920
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Attn: Valerie Masterani
Any party may change its address by a notice given to the other party in the manner set forth
above. Any notice given personally shall be deemed to have been given upon service, notices
sent by overnight service shall be deemed received on the next business day and any notice given
by certified or registered mail shall be deemed to have been given on the third (3rd) business day
after such notice is mailed.
11. Miscellaneous.
11.1 Integration. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements and
understandings between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither of the parties
has relied upon any oral or written representation or oral or written information given to it by any
representative of the other parry.
11.2 Assignment/Bin&Z Effect. Buyer ma assign this Agreement or vest
title in a nominee at Close of Escrow only to a person or entity that is an "affiliate" of Buyer.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, an "affiliate" shall be a person or entity that controls, is
controlled by or under common control with Buyer. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the
benefit of the parties, their respective heirs and permitted successors and assigns.
11.3 Amendment/Modification. No change or modification of the terms or
provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed valid unless in writing and signed by both parties.
11.4 Governing Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted
and applied in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any litigation or arbitration
regarding the Agency Property or this Agreement will be brought in Los Angeles County
Superior Court or conducted in Los Angeles County.
11.5 Business Days. Reference herein to "business days" means any day
excluding Saturday, Sunday and any day which is a legal holiday under the laws of the State of
California or in the City.
11.6 Waiver. No waiver of any breach or default shall be construed as a
continuing waiver of any provision or as a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of any
provision contained in this Agreement.
24347.0080117494436.5 11
11.7 Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any action or proceeding to enforce or
construe any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing parry in any such action or
proceeding shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
11.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and when
so executed by the parties, shall become binding upon them and each such counterpart will be an
original document.
11.9 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination. Buyer acknowledges that the
CC &Rs and Grant Deed will contain provisions binding upon Buyer, its successors and assigns
and every successor in interest to all or any portion of the Agency Property, to the effect that
there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on
account of sex, marital status, race, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry in the sale,
lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Agency Property.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
�11 -C"►I4-to]-9- 87[eI 317 �Uha.�
24347.0090117494436.5 12
ky_DI! O].91;
CITY OF ARCADIA AS SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
a public entity
Its:
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
Successor Agency Clerk City Attorney
BUYER:
PAUL P. RUSNAK F Y TRUST
By:
Trustee
24347.0080117494436.5 13
CONSENT AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ESCROW HOLDER
Design Escrow hereby agrees to (i) accept the foregoing Agreement, (ii) act as the
Escrow Holder under said Agreement and (iii) be bound by said Agreement in the performance
of its duties as Escrow Holder.
Design Escrow acknowledges receipt on the date hereof of originals or counterparts of
the foregoing Agreement fully executed by Seller and Buyer.
Design Escrow advises the parties that the date of the Opening of Escrow is
Dated: , 2013 Design Escrow
By:
Shelley Malicek
Its: Escrow Officer
24347.0080117494436.5 14
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF AGENCY PROPERTY
101 -155 N. Santa Anita:
LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF TRACT NO. 13768, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273, PAGE 37 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT FROM SAID LOT 1, THE EASTERLY 10 FEET THEREOF FOR STREET PURPOSES.
Dablgren Prooperty-
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 5, TRACT 13768, AS SHOWN ON
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273 PAGE 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
5, NORTH 9° 14'54" WEST 54.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SANTA CLARA STREET;
(80 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLUTION NO. 3607 RECORDED
ON AUGUST 9, 1963 AS DOCUMENT NO. 5909 IN BOOK D -2140 PAGE 264 OF SAID OFFICIAL
RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, EASTERLY 56.04 FEET ALONG A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 560 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 780 33'32" EAST 188.46 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 OF
SAID-TRACT 13768; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PROLONGATION, SOUTH 8.68 FEET TO
THE. NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
?NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ALL MINERALS, ORES, PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AS
RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, A
CORPORATION, RECORDED MAY 15, 1962 IN BOOK D -1614 PAGE 679, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL MINERALS AND OIL RIGHTS AS RESERVED IN THE DEED
FROM E.J. BALDWIN RECORDED JUNE 3, 1902 IN BOOK 1574 PAGE 292, OF DEEDS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND AS AGAIN EXCEPTED IN THE
DEED FROM ROSEBUDD DOBLE ATKINSON AND OTHERS, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1952
IN BOOK 38352 PAGE 138, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BUT WITHOUT
THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY OR RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS WITHIN 500 FEET OF
THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE EXPLORATION FOR, MINING, EXTRACTING OR
REMOVING THE SAME.
21 Morlan Place:
LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 13768, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273 PAGE 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
24347.0080117494436.5 A -1
EXHIBIT B
GRANT DEED
[See Attached]
Exhibit B
24347.0080117494436.5
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
and WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Attention:
Assessor's Parcel No. Exempt from Recording Fees per Govt. Code §27383
GRANT DEED
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
CITY OF ARCADIA AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, a public entity ("Grantor ") does hereby GRANT to
( "Grantee ") the real property located in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of
California, described in Exhibit "I" attached hereto.
Subject to:
I . Non - delinquent real property taxes and assessments;
2. All covenants, conditions, restrictions, reservations, rights, rights of way,
easements and other matters of record or apparent from an accurate survey of the Property.
3. The Grantee herein covenants by and for itself, its successors and assigns, and all
persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or
segregation of, any person or group or persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex,
marital status, nation origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy,
tenure, or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the Grantee or any person
z1aiming under or through it, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination
or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants,
lessees, sub - tenants, sub - lessee, or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing
covenants shall run with the land.
Date:
24347.00801 \7494436.5
CITY OF ARCADIA AS SUCCESSOR
AGENCY TO THE ARCADIA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,
a public entity
Its:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF }
On before me,
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same
in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
24347.0080117494436.5 2
(Seal)
M 01I13tw
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
101 -155 N. Santa Anita:
LOTS 1, 2,3 AND 4 OF TRACT NO. 13768, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273, PAGE 37 OF
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT FROM SAID LOT 1, THE EASTERLY 10 FEET THEREOF FOR STREET PURPOSES.
Dahlgren Property:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 5, TRACT 13768, AS SHOWN ON
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273 PAGE 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER;
THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
5, NORTH 90 14'54" WEST 54.92 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SANTA CLARA STREET;
(80 FEET WIDE) AS DESCRIBED IN CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLUTION NO. 3607 RECORDED
ON AUGUST 9, 1963 AS DOCUMENT NO. 5909 IN BOOK D -2140 PAGE 264 OF SAID OFFICIAL
RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, EASTERLY 56.04 FEET ALONG A
CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 560 FEET; THENCE
CONTINUING ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE NORTH 780 33'32" EAST 188.46 FEET, MORE
OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 5 OF
SAID-TRACT 13768; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID PROLONGATION, SOUTH 8.68 FEET TO
THE. NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT ALL MINERALS, ORES, PETROLEUM, OIL, NATURAL GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING 500 FEET BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND AS
RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM PACIFIC ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY, A
CORPORATION, RECORDED MAY 15, 1962 IN BOOK D -1614 PAGE 679, OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL MINERALS AND OIL RIGHTS AS RESERVED IN THE DEED
FROM E.J. BALDWIN RECORDED JUNE 3, 1902 IN BOOK 1574 PAGE 292, OF DEEDS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND AS AGAIN EXCEPTED IN THE
DEED FROM ROSEBUDD DOBLE ATKINSON AND OTHERS, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1952
IN BOOK 38352 PAGE 138, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, BUT WITHOUT
THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY OR RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS WITHIN 500 FEET OF
THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND FOR THE EXPLORATION FOR, MINING, EXTRACTING OR
REMOVING THE SAME.
21 Morlan Place:
LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 13768, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 273 PAGE 37 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
24347.0080117494436.5
INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND
RUSNAK MERCEDES BENZ AT 55 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
PP"�,1
CITY OF
ARCA-DiA
LEAD AGENCY
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director
240 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
{626} 574 -5414
April 2013
INITIAL STUDY
NOTE: The following is a sample form and may be tailored to satisfy project circumstances. It may be used to
n eet the requirements for an initial study when the criteria set forth in the State and Local CEQA Guidelines have been
met. Substantial evidence of potential impacts that are not listed on this form must also be considered. The sample
questions in this form are intended to encourage thoughtfiil assessment of impacts, and do not necessarily represent
thresholds of significance.
1. Project Title: Rusnak Auto Group Purchase and Sale Agreement
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia as Successor Agency to the former Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
240 West Huntington Dr.
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
3, Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Kruckeberg (626) 574 -5414
4. Project Location: 55 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91066
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address-
Rusnak/Arcadia, a California corporation
55 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia California 91066
6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: CBD & C -2 with Downtown Overla
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.)
The proposed proiect involves a Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between the City of Arcadia as Successor
Agency to the former Arcadia Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") and Rusnak/Arcadia ( "Rusnak "). According to
the Purchase and Sale Agreement. Rusnak would purchase certain Agency -owned real properly (the "PrMgMf )
immediately adjacent to the existing Rusnak dealership for purposes of redeveloping the currently underutilized
Property as an expansion of the existin Rusnak automobile sales and service center. The total project site is 5.7 acres
and is generally located at the southeast corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street The proposed
automobile sales and service center would occupy approximately 4.2 of the total project site acreage
The proposed project would be organized in two sections: a new showroom building and a new service and parts
building. The showroom would be approximately 25,000 Nuare feet and would front Santa Anita Avenue. The
showroom building would be a two -story building consisting of the following features: structural steel frame clad with
ACM panels, metal corrugated panels, clear glass, spandrel glass, metal louvers, Autohaus columns and corporate
signage. The showroom plan is open and is comprised of a significant amount of irlasslwindows on all sides The
majority of customer contact spaces would be planned for the lower floor of the showroom The second floor of the
showroom would span the service drive and would be used for dealership offices, conference room(s), training
room(s), and break room(s).
Product display will front Morlan Place and follow the curving showroom around Santa Anita Avenue to Santa Clara
Street. The display in front of the showroom will be patio type display that will have different paving patterns and a
more integiated presentation with the landscaping. Employee PgBdRg is found at the rear of the project with access off
Santa Clara Street. Parts and delivery will also take their ingress and egress off of Santa Clara Street. The access to
the site has been designed to minimize impact on Santa Anita Avenue while separatin sales and service customers
from deliveries and em to ee movements. Transport fto off is also Vmposed to take place from Santa Clara Street.
The wash and detail area is to the rear of the service area in order to pMare all new car deliveries for show. All
service cars will also be washed and parked in front of the service buildiniz to await customer pick-u .
Rmr-ak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419/13 Page I of 50 F01M "J"
The service building would be constructed of concrete, concrete block, smooth plaster with windows for light and
ventilation. The services building is planned to be 80,000 scivare feet in size. Like the showroom the service building
will be two stories Roof- topparking will be available on the service building roof. The service building would
contain all service technician spaces narks and additional parkins, as well as detail, preparation spaces and a carwash
tunnel A small display jewel box is located on the end of the second floor and the jewel box would be constructed of
glass and steel.
The architecture of the proposed sales and service buildings would be contemporary and would integrate the
Mercedes -Benz Corporate ID program palette of materials. The color scheme permitted by Mercedes -Benz' Corporate
ID program is different shades of grey for field colors and exterior accent colors of light blue to medium blue on the
columns Curtain wall butt joint trim and louvers would be natural brushed aluminum. All exterior doors would be
frameless with natural aluminum trim. The proposed project has been proposed to be a minimum LEED Silver
certified development.
Because of the narrow configuration of the site the service drive separates the service from the showroom buildings.
Main customer access is taken off Morlan Place for the service and customer parking. The service drive length and
three lanes give the project an ability to aueue over 30 cars at a time. Approximately 130,000 square feet of surface
parking area consisting of 456 parking sipaces would be provi ded.
All new cars will be delivered under controlled interior environment adiacent to the finance offices to the rear of the
showroom A secondary deliM location would be rovided near the service drive. The vast majgdty of deliveries
will occur in the early AM hours.
In order for the project to be feasible approximately 13,000 square feet of the existing 27,000 square foot Rusnak
dealership would need to be demolished.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
The site is bordered by Santa Clara Street to the north and west and Morlan Place to the south. _ The properties to the
east are zoned Central Business District (CBD), and are developed with commercial, office and retail land uses.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
• Regional Water Quality Control Board —NPDES Permit
• Conditional Use Permit (City of Arcadia)
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.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 2 of 50 FORM " T"
Aesthetics
❑
Agriculture Resources
❑
Air Quality
Biological Resources
❑
Cultural Resources
E]
Geology 1 Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
❑
Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology / Water Quality
❑
Land Use / Planning
❑
Mineral Resources
Noise
F-I
Population / Housing
0
Public Services
[]
Recreation
C
Transportation / Traffic
❑
Utilities / Service Systems
❑
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 2 of 50 FORM " T"
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
C I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
C I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated"
impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
Signature
Date
Jason Kruckeberg 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.
4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross -
referenced).
Rus^ak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 3 of 50 FORM "J"
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in
whatever format is selected.
9) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures
Standard Conditions (SC) are existing regulations that are imposed by the City and compliance with these regulations is
largely the responsibility of the project applicant/development. The SCs are not considered as mitigation measures under
CEQA. Rather, they are expected to be implemented as a matter of course by the City.
Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting
program (MMRP) to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the
attached table has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to identify the party or parties
responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will be implemented, and who will verify that
the mitigation has been implemented.
This project does have standard conditions, but no Mitigation Measures are required.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement - 419/13 Page 4 of 50 FORM " J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated impact Impact
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑
a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
C) Substantially degrade the existing L1 ❑
visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Environmental Setting
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute
to the public's experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project's
presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, aesthetic impacts may
occur. This analysis is based on review of the conceptual project map, aerial photographs of the project area,
visual renderings of the proposed automobile sales and service center, and planning documents.
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas within or near the project area. Therefore, the project would
have no impact on a scenic vista.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The proposed project is not located near a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic
highway (DOT 2007) and, therefore, would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees,
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore, no impact would occur.
C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
No Impact. The proposed project site is surrounded by a secondary arterial to the north and west (Santa Clara
Street), a primary arterial to the south (Huntington Drive) and commercial land uses to the east. The site is
currently occupied by a vacant and deteriorating 18,076 square foot retail building. The proposed project
would substantially improve the existing visual character of the site because it would add new buildings with
contemporary architecture and visual appeal. The proposed project would be subject to the City's
Architectural Design Review process to ensure that the proposed automobile sales and service center comply
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 5 of 50 FORM " J"
with the City's design standards, and that the proposed buildings would blend with the surrounding built
environment in terms of building massing, architectural coating, and orientation. The height of the new
buildings proposed by the project shall comply with the City's zoning requirement of 45 ft. maximum. Thus,
the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings and no impact would occur.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include lighting for the new showroom and service
building, pole - mounted lighting in the parking area similar to the existing lighting, and building mounted
security lighting. All lighting would be directed downward and would be contained within the project site so
as to prevent spill light. Light fixtures installed at the site would comply with the City - adopted lighting
standards. Pole - mounted lighting would be downcast to decrease light spill onto adjacent properties and
would comply with City- adopted lighting standards. The proposed lighting for the project would be consistent
with the illumination intensity of the surrounding uses such that the project would not substantially increase
the overall illumination of the area. In fact, the majority of light from the new showroom and service area will
direct lighting away from residential properties to the west, as the active portion of the site is moving to the
east, toward commercial uses. Because the lighting would be minimal and would comply with City lighting
standards, the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact would be less than significant.
Issues:
11. 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:
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 6 of 50 FORM "Y'
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?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
C) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(8)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined
by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-
forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non -forest use?
Environmental Setting
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
■ �I
El
The proposed project site is located within an existing developed portion of the City. There are no agriculture
or forest resources located within the project site.
The California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)
designated agricultural land based on soil quality and irrigation status into eight categories. Based on the
FMMP data, the project site is located within an area designated as "Urban and Built -up Land ". The
California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local
governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of preserving agriculture and
restricting unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the contract, landowners receive reduced property tax
assessments based on the property's value for farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.
The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract.
The project site is designated in the City of Arcadia General Plan as Commercial and is zoned CBD & C -2
with a Downtown Overlay that allows up to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio and up to 45 feet in height or four stories
(City of Arcadia 2010).
Discussion
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?
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 7 of 50 FARM "J"
No Impact. The project site is designated as Urban and Built -up Land pursuant to the FMMP of the California
Resources Agency (FMMP 2008). The project would have no impact related to conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non - agricultural use.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland
zoned Timberland Production?
No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project site is developed and is not under an
existing Williamson Act contract. The proposed project is consistent with existing land use and zoning
designations and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
C) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
No Impact. There are no forest resources located within the project site and the site is not zoned for timber
harvest. The project site is already developed with a parking lot and an existing retail building. The proposed
project would have no impact related to timberland harvest or conflicts with land zoned for forestry or timber
harvest.
d) 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?
No Impact. The project area is not forested. The site does not have any forestry resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g), timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 452$, or
timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section 51104(g). Therefore, no
impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. Indirect impacts on agricultural lands can occur in two ways: 1) by development placing pressure
on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non - agricultural uses; or 2) through conflict between the two types
of land uses leading to the abandonment of agricultural uses.
The proposed project is consistent with the City of Arcadia's adopted land use and zoning designations. The
project would not encroach on the agricultural land and would not include residential development, which
could result in conflicts that could encourage the conversion of existing farmland to non - agricultural uses. No
forest land or timberland exists on or in the vicinity of the project site and the proposed project does not
include components that would result in the conversion of forest land to non - forest use. The proposed project
would have no impact related to conversion of farmland or forest land to a non- agricultural/non- forest use.
Rwsnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 8 of 50 FORM "J"
b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in Los Angeles County, which lies within the South Coast Air Basin and is under the
local air quality jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Nearby
sensitive receptors include the Arroyo Pacific school and residential uses to the north of the property. Recent
measurements of the City's air quality show that the City's air quality exceeds thresholds for Ozone (03),
particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM Io), and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2,$). (Arcadia
Gcneral Plan Update EIR, 2010.)
The SCAQMD, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is responsible
for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB, which addresses federal and state
CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SoCAB.
The SCAQMD has published the Draft Final 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing
Board on June 1, 2007. In September 2007, the CARB Board adopted the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP as part of
the SIP. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP for the SoCAB (and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under
the SCAQMD's jurisdiction) is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance
with federal and State air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the
CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 South Coast AQMP as part of the SIP.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 9 of 50 FORM "J"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Issues:
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
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?
b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
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)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑
substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in Los Angeles County, which lies within the South Coast Air Basin and is under the
local air quality jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Nearby
sensitive receptors include the Arroyo Pacific school and residential uses to the north of the property. Recent
measurements of the City's air quality show that the City's air quality exceeds thresholds for Ozone (03),
particulate matter of 10 microns or less (PM Io), and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2,$). (Arcadia
Gcneral Plan Update EIR, 2010.)
The SCAQMD, with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is responsible
for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SoCAB, which addresses federal and state
CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals, policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SoCAB.
The SCAQMD has published the Draft Final 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing
Board on June 1, 2007. In September 2007, the CARB Board adopted the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP as part of
the SIP. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP for the SoCAB (and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under
the SCAQMD's jurisdiction) is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance
with federal and State air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007, the
CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 South Coast AQMP as part of the SIP.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 9 of 50 FORM "J"
Additionally, the 2007 AQMP has been submitted to the USEPA for approval, but no timeline on the approval
is available at this time.
As part of the 2007 AQMP, the SCAQMD requested and the USEPA approved a "bump -up" to the "extreme"
nonattainment classification for ozone in the SoCAB, which extends the attainment date to 2024 and allows
for the attainment demonstration to rely on emission reductions from measures that anticipate the development
of new technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. Although PM2.5 plans for nonattainment
areas were due in April 2008, the 2007 AQMP also focuses on attainment strategies for the PM2.5 standard
through stricter control of sulfur oxides, directly emitted PM2.5, NOx, and VOCs. The need to commence
PM2.5 control strategies before April 2008 is due to the attainment date for PM2_5 (2015) being much earlier
than that for ozone (2024). However, it should be noted that the PM2.5 plans are still in the process of being
submitted. Control measures and strategies for PM2.5 will also help control ozone generation in the region
because PM2,5 and ozone share similar precursors (e.g., NOx). The SCAQMD has integrated PM2.5 and ozone
reduction control measures and strategies in the 2007 AQMP. In addition, the AQMP focuses on reducing
VOC emissions, which have not been reduced at the same rate as NOx emissions in the past. Hence, the
SoCAB has not achieved ozone reductions as were expected in previous plans.
The 2007 AQMP was based on assumptions provided by both CARB and SCAG in the new EMFAC2007
model for the most recent motor vehicle and demographics information, respectively. The air quality levels
projected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example, the 2007 AQMP has assumed
that development associated with general plans, specific plans, residential projects, and wastewater facilities
will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). The 2007 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement
strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development.
SCAQMD has established the following thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants:
Pollutant
Construction
Operation
NOx
100 lbs /day
55 lbs /day
VOC
75 lbs/day
55 lbs/day
PM10
150 lbs/day
150 lbs /day
PM2.5
55 lbs/day
55 lbs/day
Sox
150 lbs/day
150 lbs /day
CO
550 lbs /day
550 lbs/day
Lead
3 lbs /day
3 lbs/day
Source: City of Arcadia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report 2010
The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations for maintaining clean air in the region. All projects are subject to
SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to future
development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update may include, but are not limited to:
Rule 401, Visible Emissions A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source
of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three
minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the
Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement— 4/4!13 Page 10 of 50 FORM "J"
Rule 402, Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air
contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any
considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or
safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or
damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from
agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
• Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in
the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (man -made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to
prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or man -made
condition capable of generating fugitive dust.
• Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any
architectural coating within the SCAQMD, with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a
table incorporated in the Rule.
a Regulation IX, NSPS, and Regulation X, NESHAPS. Federal standards for the performance of new
stationary sources and the NESHAPS were adopted by the SCAQMD and made part of their rules and
apply to the owner or operator of any stationary source that generates hazardous air pollutants.
0 Regulation XI and XIII. These regulations contain source- specific standards for various industrial
uses and other pollutant sources and outlines review requirements for new, modified, or relocated
facilities.
• Regulation XI V, Toxics and Other Non - Criteria Pollutants, and Rule 1401, New Source Review to
TACs Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV and Rule 1401, all sources that possess the potential to emit
TACs are required to obtain permits from the SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to operations that
are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review
standards and airtoxics control measures. The SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to
TACs through a number of programs and prioritizes TAC- emitting stationary sources based on the
quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors.
• Rule 2202, On -Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. This rule provides employers with a menu
of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes to comply with
CAA and CCAA requirements and with California Health and Safety Code section 40458. It applies
to employers who employ 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a work site.
Discussion
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No Impact. The emission inventories used to develop the SCAB'S air quality attainment plans are based
primarily on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the region, which are based, in
part, on the planned growth identified in regional and community plans. The SCAQMD's Air Quality
Attainment plan is based on general plan projections for each of the cities and counties that fall within the
Sout� Coast Air Basin. Here, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's existing General Plan
and zoning designations. Therefore, it would be consistent with the population growth and VMT projections
contained in SCAQMD's Air Quality Attainment Plan. The proposed project would not interfere with the
region's ability to attain or maintain state and national ambient air quality standards. Thus, implementation of
the troposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality planning efforts and
there would be no impact.
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
i�usrzk Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 11 of 50 FORM "J"
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed below, implementation of the proposed project would result in
short-term construction and long term operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions.
Short -Term Construction Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
During construction of the proposed project, criteria air pollutant (and precursor) emissions would be
temporarily and intermittently generated from a variety of sources. As mentioned in the project description,
the proposed project would require the demolition of approximately 13,000 square feet of the existing Rusnak
buildings. In addition, project related site preparation would generate fugitive particulate matter (PM) dust
emissions. Fugitive PM dust emissions are primarily associated with ground disturbance and material
transport and vary as a function of parameters such as soil silt content and moisture, wind speed, acreage of
disturbance area, and the intensity of activity performed with construction equipment. Exhaust emissions from
diesel equipment, material transport trips, and construction worker - commute trips also contribute to short-term
increases in PM emissions, but to a lesser extent. Exhaust emissions from these construction - related mobile
sources would also include ROG and NOx. In addition, the application of architectural coatings (i.e., interior
and exterior surface painting) would result in off -gas emissions of ROG.
Construction - related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were modeled in accordance with
SCAQMD - recommended methodologies using project specifications (e.g., demolition square footage, volume
to be imported, construction schedule, equipment list and duration), and default settings and parameters
contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model -2011 (CAL- EEMOD). The modeled emissions are
summarized in Table AQ -1.
Table AQ-1
Summary of Modeled Short -Term Construction Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions
Construction Activity
ROG
bslda)
NOx
bslda
PM,o
lbs/day)
PM2.5
(lbslda
Demolition and Construction
718
73.17
6.60
4.63
SCAQMD Threshold of Significance
100
150
55
Notes:
As demonstrated by Table AQ -1, project - generated emissions from construction would not violate or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation including the nonattainment status of
the South Coast Air Basin for 03, PM10, or PM2,5 Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to
comply with existing SCAQMD Rules and Regulations regarding air quality. Through implementation of Best
Management Practices currently required by the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, and the implementation of
Standard Conditions SC14 below, the project's projected emissions would be further reduced. As a result,
this impact would be less than significant.
Long -Term Operational Related Regional Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the long -term operation of a high -end car
dealership which would result in the presence of additional vehicles on the project site for sales and service.
Customers and employees coming to the project site are anticipated to result in approximately 67 net new daily
car trips. All new vehicles held for sale on the project site will be required to meet the state's current
emissions standards.
SCAQMD provides a screening methodology to determine project impacts from localized carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions. This screening methodology was utilized to analyze local CO emissions from the operation
of this project. According to the traffic study conducted, the proposed project would not impact any of the
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 12 of 50 FORM "T"
surrounding intersections such that Level of Service (LOS) would be reduced below LOS E. Consequently,
project - generated long -term operation related local mobile source emissions of CO would not violate or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact. South Coast Air Basin is currently designated nonattainment for the state
ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Past, present and future development projects contribute to the region's
adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature, air pollution is largely a cumulative
impact. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality
standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air
quality impacts. As explained in SCAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, and consistent with CEQA, if a project's
contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project's impact on air quality would be
considered significant. If a project exceeds the identified significance threshold, its emissions would be
cumulatively considerable, resulting in an adverse air quality impact.
As explained above in response to threshold (b), the proposed project would not result in the emission of
pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, the project generated emissions of
criteria pollutants and precursors would not be cumulatively considerable. This would be a less than
significant impact.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Less Than Significant Impact. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site is the Arroyo Pacific school
and residential uses, which are located approximately 50 yards to the northwest of the project site. These
receptors are actually closer to the current showroom and service area. The new showroom will be built further
to the east, surrounded by commercial uses. As discussed in response to threshold (b) above, project
implementation would not result in significant regional or local emissions of criteria air pollutant or precursors
from construction or operational related activities. Thus, project - generated criteria air pollutant and precursor
emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be
less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on -site
construction equipment. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel- fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified
as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by ARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM,
as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (ARB 2003), so is the focus of this
discussion. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e.,
potential exposure to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a
function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to
the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a
higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally
exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the
exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70 -year exposure period; however,
such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the proposed project
(OEHHA 2001).
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 13 of 50 FORM "J"
The primary source of diesel PM from the proposed project would be from construction - related activities (e.g.,
exhaust from off -road heavy -duty diesel equipment). Sensitive receptors surrounding the project site include
residential uses and the Arroyo Pacific School. Based on the emission modeling shown above under the
discussion of threshold "b ", the highest level of PM10 (combined dust and diesel exhaust) that would occur on
the worst construction day would be 6.60 lbs/day. This level is substantially lower than the threshold of 150
lbs/day established by the SCAQMD. Additionally, the construction phase is estimated to last approximately
10 months with the peak construction in the first 4 months and only allowed to take place Monday to Saturday
from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Typically, there are fewer people in their homes during the time when
construction would take place. Thus, considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM (Zhu and
Hinds 2002), the substantially low amount of emissions predicted from this project, and the short duration and
daily timing of construction activities, construction - related activities would not be anticipated to result in the
exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
The proposed project would include the long -term operation of an automobile sales and service business. As a
result, operation of any stationary sources would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC
emissions that exceed SCAQMD's significance threshold. Thus, in regard to both project - generated
construction and operational TACs, this impact would be considered less than significant.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors,
including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of
sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very
unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and
regulatory agencies.
The general nuisance rule (Health and Safety Code section 41700 and District Rule 402) established by the
SCAQMD provides the basis for offensive odors thresholds. It states that "A person shall not discharge from
any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause
injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from
agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals." (City of Arcadia
General Plan Update EIR 2010.)
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of odor (e.g., not one of the
common types of facilities nor includes activities that are known to produce odors [landfill, coffee roaster,
wastewater treatment facility]). Minor odors from the use of on -site equipment during construction activities
would be intermittent and temporary, and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance.
In addition, operation of the project would not result in locating sensitive receptors near an existing odor
source. Thus, project implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
For items IIIa -e, the following Standard Conditions shall be required.
SC -1: Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the
construction site daily. 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 aver 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-2: 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.
SC-3: On -site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use.
Rus-mk Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 14 of 50 FORM "J"
SC-4: Staging areas for heavy -duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors
(i.e. adjacent residential uses). A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will be line -up and a truck
route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to
construction.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on E ❑
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?
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?
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?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ❑ ❑
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
Rumak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9113 Page 15 of 50 FORM "J"
0 Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located within an existing urban area of the City of Arcadia on a developed and fully
disturbed site. Additionally, the project site is surrounded on all sides by development of other buildings,
parking lots, and/or roadway infrastructure. There are no trees on site that could serve as suitable habitat for
nesting birds or raptors.
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as 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?
No Impact. The project site is located on land that is fully developed. No habitat for candidate, sensitive or
special status species is located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse
effects on any sensitive species identified in local or regional plans policies or regulations or identified by the
California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no impact.
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 US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact. The project site is located on land that is developed. No riparian vegetation or sensitive natural
communities occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or
regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact
would occur.
C) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 440 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact. There are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters on or near the project site. Therefore, the project
would not remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. There are no wildlife corridors on the project site as the site is in the middle of an urban
community and is surrounded by development on all sides. The site is currently developed and is not used by
wildlife as a corridor or for movement. Therefore, the proposed project would not impede wildlife movement
through the site and no impact would occur.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/4/13 Page 16 of 50 FORM "7"
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as
significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of oak trees. The
regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code) provide that the following oak trees shall not be
removed, relocated, damaged, or have their protected zones encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is
granted.
I . Engelmann Oaks (Quercus Engelmannii) or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak (Quercus
Agrifolia) which have a trunk diameter larger than four (4) inches measured at a point four and one
half (4 %x) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or
greater in diameter, measured at a point four and one half (4 %z) feet above the crown root.
2. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve (12) inches measured at a
point four and one half (4' /z) feet above the crown root, or, two (2) or more trunks measuring ten (10)
inches each or greater in diameter measured at a point four and one half (4' /z) feet above the crown
root.
There are no protected oak trees on -site. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact oak trees and
would not conflict with the Arcadia Oak Tree Regulations. There would be no impact.
i1 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community
Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that cover habitats
located within the City of Arcadia. There would, therefore, be no conflict with any such provisions with the
proposed project. No impact would occur.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑
in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in § 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change ❑
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
C) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ® L1
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, El 11
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
Ru-snak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/91I3 Page 17 of 50 FORM "F9
Environmental Setting
Background information on cultural resources for the project area was obtained from review of the City's
General Plan Update EIR. The City has a rich history marked by several known historic and archeological
resources. According to the General Plan EIR, there are no known paleontological resources or human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, within the City's limits.
Discussion
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
No Impact. There are no historical resources located on the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur to
any buildings or structures listed on the State Office of Historic Preservation's (OHP) California Register or
the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, the proposed project would not result in a "substantial
adverse change" to the immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be
materially altered. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.) Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. No impact would occur
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to
§ 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would involve no soil disturbance
(i.e., grading, excavating, etc.) in previously undisturbed areas. No known archaeological sites are documented
within the project site, and the site has been previously developed and graded.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, there are no known paleontological resources within the
City's limits. No unique paleontological or geologic features exist on site.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact. No evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic -era marked or unmarked
interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Further, the site has been
previously developed and graded for prior land uses.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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:
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 18 of 50 FORM "J"
i) 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?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
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?
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?
C) 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?
Environmental Setting
Local Soil
❑ ❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
1 -■1
® ❑
® ❑
0 19
® ❑
® ❑
El Z
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Report and General Soil Map for Los Angeles County
identifies soil associations in the City of Arcadia as consisting primarily of Hanford soils, with Vista
Amargosa soils at the northeastern end and Tujuriga- Soboba soils at the southeastern end (USDA 1969).
Hanford soils are found on gently sloping alluvial fans. These soils are well- drained and have moderately
rapid soil permeability. They are slightly acidic to mildly alkaline. Hanford soils have low shrink -swell
potential and low corrosivity. They have slight limitations for shallow excavation and as septic tank filter
fields. Erosion hazard is slight to moderate (USDA 1969).
The Tujunga - Soboba soil association is made of up to 60 percent Tujunga soils and 30 percent Soboba soils,
wit_ the remaining 10 percent consisting of sandy and cobble material in the beds of intermittent streams.
Rumak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419/13 Page 19 of 50 FORM "P'
Tujunga soils have rapid soil permeability and are slightly acidic to mildly alkaline. Gravel and cobble make
up 35 percent of the Soboba soils. Tujunga - Soboba soils have low shrink -swell potential and low corrosivity.
Soil erosion hazard is slight to moderate from water and moderate to high from wind (USDA 1969).
Vista - Amargosa soils are found in steep mountainous areas. Vista soils make up 45 percent of the association,
with Amargosa soils making up 40 percent. The remaining 15 percent consist of 5 percent Godde soils, 5
percent Saugus soils, and 5 percent rock land. Vista soils are well drained and have moderately rapid soil
permeability. Shcet and rill erosion are moderate on Amargosa soils, which has led to the removal of 25 or 40
percent of the surface soils, with rock outcrops covering 2 to 10 percent of the surface. Vista - Amargosa soils
have low shrink -swell potential and low corrosivity. Soil erosion hazard is high to very high (USDA 1969).
Faults and Seismicity
Within Los Angeles County, numerous regional and local faults are capable of producing severe earthquakes
(magnitude [M] of 6.0 or greater). Active and potentially active faults that cross the City of Arcadia include
the Raymond fault (also known as the Raymond Hill fault), the Sierra Madre fault, and Eaton Wash
groundwater barrier, with the Upper Elysian Park blind thrust and Puente Hills blind thrust underlying areas
that could cause folding and uplift in the City. Others faults located near the City (within ten miles) include
the Clamshell - Sawpit, Verdugo -Eagle Rock, Alhambra Wash, Whittier, and San Jose faults.
Discussion
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault?
Less Than Significant Impact. A number of existing regulations prevent development over a fault trace or
protect structures and infrastructure from surface rupture hazards. Specifically, compliance with seismic
design criteria in the CBC would promote the structural integrity of structures and infrastructures near faults.
(See Standard Condition 4.6 -1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Compliance with AP Zone requirements
for detailed fault investigations would identify the presence of a fault trace on a development site. (See
Standard Condition 4.6 -2 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Setbacks from the zone of previous ground
rupture is required by the City's Special Studies Geologic Zones Code would preclude the development of
structures intended for human occupancy over a potentially active, or an active fault trace, and require a
setback requirement of at least 50 feet or greater for high risk structures, such as schools, hospitals, and
buildings over 2 stories high. (See Standard Condition 4.6 -3 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Disclosure of
a site's location within a Special Studies Zone during real estate transactions would also reduce risks to
development. (See Standard Condition 4.6-4 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, with
implementation of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this
regard.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact. Geotechnical studies for the proposed project have not been prepared to
evaluate the suitability of project site soils for the potential for seismic induced settlement. If a seismic event
occurs at a nearby fault, seismic induced settlement could affect the project site. The extent of damage would
depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. Consistent
with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval, the project shall comply with the seismic design criteria in
the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6 -1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, with implementation
of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
iii) Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 20 of 50 FORM "r'
Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of strength in saturated, loose to
medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of
b-:ildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. Geotechnical studies have
not been conducted to address the liquefaction potential at the project site. During a seismic event, the extent
of damage from ground failure including liquefaction would depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater
depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. Consistent with City policy, the project shall comply with
the seismic design criteria in the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6 -1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.)
Therefore, with implementation of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant
in.pact in this regard.
iv) Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a relatively flat site and, therefore, would not be subject to
landslides. This would be a less than significant impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No Impact. The proposed project site is currently fully developed and disturbed with impervious surfaces.
TTe proposed project would not cause substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As described in response to threshold (a)(iii) above, liquefaction impacts are
considered less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks of life or property?
Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that are high in expansive clays or silts and that swell
and shrink with wetting and drying, respectively. This shrinking and swelling can result in differential ground
movement, which can cause damage to foundations. However, proper fill selection, moisture control, and
compaction during construction can prevent these types of soils from causing significant damage. The soils
on -site have a moderate shrink/swell potential and could have the potential to create risk to life or property if
the soils are not properly compacted. Consistent with City policy, the project shall comply with the seismic
design criteria in the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6 -1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, with
implementation of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this
regard.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic systems. Therefore, no impact would
occur.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement -- 4/9/13 Page 21 of 50 FORM " F
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would
the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, ❑
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, El ® L1
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases?
Environmental Setting
Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in
determining the earth's surface temperature. GHGs are responsible for "trapping" solar radiation in the earth's
atmosphere, a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse
effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride.
Human - caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for
intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate, known
as global climate change or global warming. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50
years can be explained without the contribution from human activities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [IPCC] 2007). By adoption of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, and Senate Bill (SB) 97, the State of California has acknowledged that the effects of GHG emissions
cause adverse environmental impacts. AB 32 mandates that emissions of GHGs must be capped at 1990 levels
by the year 2020 (H &SC section 38530).
Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute,
on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. Although the emissions of one single project will not cause
global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a
cumulative impact with respect to global climate change.
Legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide
context for and a process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of
environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies
consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small (on a global basis) additions.
Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to
worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and therefore significant.
Discussion
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Construction Greenhouse Gas Emission
Rusaak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 22 of 50 FORM "J"
Less Than Significant Impact. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas that would be emitted
during project construction. Emissions would be associated with mobile - source exhaust from worker
commute trips, haul truck trips, and equipment used on site (e.g., pavers, lifts). While emissions of other
GHGs such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) are important with respect to global climate change, the
emission levels of these GHGs for the sources associated with project activities are nominal compared with
CO2 emissions, even considering their higher global warming potential. Therefore, all GHG emissions for
construction are reported as CO2.
GHG emissions associated with the project were modeled in accordance with SCAQMD - recommended
methodologies using project specifications and default settings and parameters contained in the California
Emissions Estimator Model -2011 (CAL- EEMOD). CAL -EEMOD allows for the input of project-specific
information to estimate emissions generated by worker commute trips, on -site equipment, and haul truck trips.
Input parameters were based on project- specific information, default model settings, and reasonably
conservative assumptions. The modeled yearly emissions are summarized in Table GHG -1. As shown from
the emission estimate in Table GHG -1, the emissions from this project would be minor.
Table GHG-1
Summary of Modeled Construction GHG Emissions
Project option Total CO2 MT/yr
Proposed Project 351.65
Notes: COZ = carbon dioxide; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT /yr = metric tons per year.
Values from URBEMIS were converted from short tons per year to metric tons per year.
See Appendix A for detailed modeling results.
Source: Modeling Conducted by City of Arcadia, 2013. Methodology by Rincon Consultants, 2012.
The construction phase would be relatively short, and the associated emissions would not be substantial. For
these reasons, it is unlikely that the construction of this project would conflict with the goals of AB 32.
Therefore, the proposed project would have a less - than - cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less than
significant construction impact on climate change.
Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would introduce a new mobile source of greenhouse gas
emissions to the project site. Using the CAL -EEMOD inputs and tables for this project, it is estimated that
overall operational emissions from this project will be 1945.62 MT /yr. The recommended threshold set by the
SCAQMD is 3,000 MT /yr to be considered cumulatively to have an impact (Rincon Consultants, 2012).
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emission of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. The principal overall state plan and policy is AB 32. The quantitative goal of
AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This goal has been calculated by various methods
as reducing 2020 GHG emissions by 28 to 30 percent compared to "business as usual ". The project falls within
the parameters set by the City of Arcadia General Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010) as well as the
City's Energy Action Plan (2012).
Rusrak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4,9113 Page 23 of 50 FORM "J"
Issues:
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
With
disposal of hazardous materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the
Significant No
public or the environment through
Incorporated
reasonably foreseeable upset and
❑
accident conditions involving the
® ❑
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
C)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste
within one - quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
e)
For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
g) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ED
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Rus: ak P=hase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 24 of 50 FORM "Y"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
❑
❑
® ❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ED
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Rus: ak P=hase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 24 of 50 FORM "Y"
h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ El
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?
Environmental Setting
A computerized data search of various agency lists was conducted for the project site and surrounding area to
identify potential hazardous contamination sites. There are no facilities on or adjacent to the project site that
are listed as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) generators of hazardous waste, according to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Envirofacts Web database (EPA 2011) and the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor Database (DTSC 2011
Discussion
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not involve the routine transport, use or disposal of
hazardous materials. However, as part of the proposed project, two (2) buildings totaling approximately
31,000 square feet would be demolished. It is possible that the buildings to be demolished may contain
asbestos, lead based paint, or other hazardous building materials. In the event that such hazardous materials
are brought transported on- or off -site, the project would be required to comply with the City's standard
conditions regarding the routine transport of hazardous materials. (See Standard Conditions 4.7 -1.)
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, two (2) buildings totaling approximately
31,000 square feet would be demolished. It is possible that the buildings to be demolished may contain
asbestos, lead based paint, or other hazardous building materials. Moreover, during construction of the
proposed project, hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants would be used to operate construction
equipment such as backhoes, loaders, excavators, and compaction machines. Fuels and lubricants have the
potential to be released into the environment at the project site, causing environmental and/or human exposure
to these hazards. However, consistent with the City's standard policies, any and all hazardous materials used
or present on -site, including asbestos and lead based paint, shall be removed and disposed of in accordance
with the then existing applicable laws and regulations. (See Standard Conditions 4.7 -6 and 4.7 -7 in General
Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, through compliance with existing state and local regulations regarding
hazardous building materials, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Nn Impact. The proposed project site is not within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Therefore, the project would not have an impact in this regard.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code section 55962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Rumak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 25 of 50 F OW "T'
No Impact. The project area is not identified by EPA or DTSC as a hazardous materials site (EPA 2011;
DTSC 2011). Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the
environment as a result of existing hazardous material contamination. Therefore, no impact would occur.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, whether 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?
No Impact. The nearest general aviation airport, the El Monte Airport, is located approximately 5.5 miles
from the project site. All Runway Protection Zones for the El Monte Airport are located within the City of El
Monte. However, the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport extends into the southern portion of the
City of Arcadia. The project site is not located within the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport. The
proposed project would not affect airport safety. Therefore, no impact would occur.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the project area?
No Impact. No private air strips occur within or near the project area. The proposed project does not include
any structures of significant height or include any activities that would impair operations of air safety of these
private air transport facilities. It should be noted that the proposed project contemplates construction of two
(2) two -story buildings. A multi -story building is located immediately across the street from the project site on
the southeast corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street. Therefore, no impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. Because the proposed project would be contained within an existing developed site, the proposed
project would not permanently impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result, no impacts are anticipated.
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?
No Impact. As explained above, the project site and its surrounding environment are completely built. The
threat of wildland fires in the urban core of the City is minimal. Therefore, there would be no wildland fire
risks associated with development of the project.
Issues:
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) During project construction, will it
create or contribute runoff water that
would violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirement, including the terms of t
he City's municipal separate
stormwater sewer system permit?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ® ❑
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 26 of 50 FORM "J"
b) After the project is completed, will
it create or contribute runoff water
that would violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements, including the terms of
the City's municipal separate sewer
system permit?
C) Provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff from
delivery areas; loading docks; other
areas where materials are stored,
vehicles or equipment are fueled or
maintained, waste is handled, or
hazardous materials are handled or
delivered; other outdoor work areas;
or other sources?
d) Discharge stormwater so that one or
more beneficial uses of receiving
waters or areas that provide water
quality benefit are impaired?
Beneficial uses include commercial
and sportfishing; shellfish
harvesting; provision of freshwater,
estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife
or biological habitat; water contact
or non - contact recreation; municipal
and domestic supply; agricultural
supply; and groundwater recharge.
e) Discharge stormwater so that
significant harm is caused to the
biological integrity of waterways or
water bodies?
f) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
g) 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)?
h) 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?
IN
0
FE-1
Fell
//
U
El
/t
LE
0
I
❑■
Rusaak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419/13 Page 27 of 50 FORM "J"
i) Substantially alter the existing
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
drainage pattern of the site or area,
®
including through the alteration of
❑
the course of a stream or river, or
®
substantially increase the rate or
❑
amount of surface runoff in a
❑
manner which would result in
❑
flooding on- or off -site?
D
Significantly increase erosion, either
on or off -site?
k)
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?
1)
Significantly alter the flow velocity
or volume of stormwater runoff in a
manner that results in environmental
harm?
m)
Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
n)
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?
o)
Place within a 100 -year flood hazard
area structures which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
P)
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?
q)
Expose people or structures to
inundation by seiches, tsunami, or
mudflow?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑
❑
®
❑
❑ ❑ ® ❑
❑
❑
®
E
❑
❑
❑
F
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Environmental Setting
The proposed project site is currently built and fully developed. As explained above, the Property contains an
existing vacant retail building and a parking lot. In addition, the existing Rusnak dealership is fully built and
operational. The site is covered in imperious surfaces.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 28 of 50 FORM "d"
Discussion
a) During project construction, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit?
Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water runoff from the proposed project construction site could contain
pollutants such as soils and sediments that are released during demolition, grading and excavation activities
and petroleum- related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Other common
pollutants that may result from construction activities include solid or liquid chemical spills; concrete and
related cutting or curing residues; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, acids, lime,
piaster, and cleaning agents; and heavy metals from equipment.
Construction runoff would flow into the storm drain inlets in the City or in the surrounding area and would
enter into Eaton Wash, Arcadia Wash, Santa Anita Wash, Sierra Madre Wash, or Sawpit Wash, which are
connected to the Rio Hondo and the Los Angeles River. With segments of the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles
River considered as impaired water bodies, pollutants in the storm water could add to further degradation of
water quality and violation of TMDLs for the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles River.
However, the CWA establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction
activities through the NPDES program. Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land are
required to obtain an NPDES permit from the SWRCB, Division of Water Quality. Coverage under the
NPDES Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a PRD with the SWRCB prior
to commencement of construction activities. The determination of Risk Level 1, 2, or 3 for a development
project would be made at the time of PRD submittal. The BMPs set forth in the SWPPP and implemented
during construction activities that are most often used include (1) erosion - control BMPs such as hydraulic
mulch, soil binders, and geotextiles and mats to stabilize soils; (2) temporary drainage swales to divert runoff
from exposed soils; (3) sediment controls such as fiber rolls along disturbed areas, temporary desalting basins,
and gravel bags around storm drain inlets; (4) watering of exposed soils and covering stockpiles of soil; (5)
stabilization of construction entrance /exit points to reduce tracking sediments; and (5) timing of grading to
avoid the rainy season (November through April). According to the City's standard conditions, the proposed
project would be required to obtain an NPDES permit. (See Standard Condition 4.8 -1 in General Plan Update
EIR 2010.)
Provisions of the 2007 California Building Code, grading permit requirements and conditions, and Arcadia
Municipal Code provisions include elements that require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts. The
project applicant/developer's full compliance with the NPDES General Permit No CAR000002 for Storm
Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (or the latest approved general permit) is required.
(See Standard Condition 4.8 -1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Pursuant to permit requirements, the
project applicant/developer shall develop a PRD (including an SWPPP) that incorporates BMPs for reducing
or eliminating construction - related pollutants in the site runoff and for ongoing monitoring of site runoff water
quality.
See discussion of City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit below in response to threshold
(b)
As a result, compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit and Title 24 Green
Buiiding Standards, would reduce short-term, general construction - related water quality impacts to surface
water and to groundwater to levels considered less than significant; no mitigation is required.
b) After the project is completed, will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, including the terms of the City's
municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit?
Rurak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 29 of 50 FORM " 1"
Less Than Significant Impact: The Los Angeles County NPDES MS4 Permit calls for new development and
major redevelopment projects to prepare individual SUSMPs that identify the potential pollutants that would
be generated by the project and the site. (See Standard Condition 4.8 -2 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.)
SUSMPs are also required for the following activities: vehicle or equipment fueling areas; vehicle or
equipment maintenance areas, including washing and repair; commercial or industrial waste handling or
storage; outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials; outdoor manufacturing areas; outdoor food
handling or processing; outdoor animal care, confinement, or slaughter; or outdoor horticulture activities.
The SUSMP must include a drainage concept and storm water quality plan that reduces peak storm water
runoff discharge rates; conserves natural areas; minimizes storm water pollutants of concern; protects slopes
and channels; provides storm drain system stenciling and signage; properly designs outdoor material storage
areas and trash storage areas; and provides proof of ongoing BMP maintenance through structural or
treatment- control BMPs. Satisfaction of MS4 Permit requirements for new development (SC 4.8 -2), with
preparation of a SUSMP by individual projects, would comply with the water quality standards for storm
water runoff.
Additionally, the City also prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water and requires
development projects to provide best management practices to reduce pollutants in the storm water, under
Article VII, Chapter 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. (See Standard Condition 4.8 -3 in General Plan Update
EIR 2010.) Compliance with these regulations would reduce storm water pollution in the longterm.
Compliance with these existing regulations would prevent long -term water quality impacts from the project
development. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
C) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks;
other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained, waste is
handled, or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other
sources?
Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes high -end luxury vehicle sales and a service
center. It is possible that sources of polluted runoff could originate from the lot where the for -sale vehicles are
parked and from the delivery areas, loading docks and the service center. However, as explained above, the
project's compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit, Title 24 Green
Building Standards, MS4 Permit requirements for new development including preparation of a SUSMP, and
Article VII, Chapter 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which prohibits discharge of specific pollutants into the
storm water system and requires installation of best management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater,
would all ensure that polluted runoff impacts would be less than significant.
d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and
sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater, estuarine, wetland, marine, wildlife
or biological habitat; water contact or non- contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply;
agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge.
Less Than Significant Impact: Refer to responses to thresholds (a) -(b) above. The site is currently
completely impervious, with parking lots, buildings and hardscape covering virtually 100% of the property.
The SUSMP required for the new project will improve discharge in that more stormwater will be retained on
site and less sheetflow will occur.
e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways
or water bodies?
Less Than Significant Impact: Refer to responses to thresholds (a) -(b) above.
f) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Rwiak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 30 of 50 FORM "J"
im) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to responses to thresholds (a) -(b) above.
g) 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)?
No Impact. As explained above, the proposed project site is currently covered by impervious surfaces.
Groundwater recharge does not occur at the project site. Therefore, to the extent that the proposed project
would redevelop the existing site, it would not deplete groundwater supplies or otherwise interfere with
groundwater recharge. Thus, no impact would occur.
h) 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?
D Significantly increase erosion, either on or off -site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above, the proposed project site is currently covered by
impervious surfaces. Moreover, the project is located in the City's urban core and is surrounded on all sides
by development. Stormwater is currently discharged as sheet flow across the existing paved site into the
adjacent drainage facilities in the street. The SUSMP required for the new project will improve discharge in
that more stormwater will be retained on site and less sheet flow will occur. There are no streams or rivers on
or near the project site. The proposed project would not substantially change this drainage pattern and would
not lead to erosion either on or off -site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
1) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in
environmental harm?
i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site?
Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above, the proposed project site is currently covered by
impervious surfaces and the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing site drainage pattern.
Moreover, because the site is currently covered by pavement and existing buildings and because the proposed
prod ect would be substantially similar in terms of the amount of impervious surface, neither the rate nor the
amount of surface runoff would substantially change. If anything, the required SUSMP will improve site
drainage in that more stormwater will be required to be retained on site and less sheet flow will occur.
Moreover, there are no streams or rivers on or near the project site that would be altered as a result of the
project. Further, the best practices required as part of the SUSMP for the project will actually reduce sheet
flow from the site and, therefore, the proposed project would not change the flow velocity or volume of
stormwater from the site. As a result, runoff from the proposed project would not result in flooding on- or off -
site, Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above, the proposed project would be required to obtain an
NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a condition of the issuance of that permit,
the applicant must implement various minimum Best Management Practices to minimize polluted runoff.
With implementation of those Best Management Practices, the proposed project would not provide substantial
Rusnak- Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 31 of 50 FORM '7
additional sources of polluted runoff into the City's existing or planned stormwater drainage systems.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
n) 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?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include construction of any housing. The project area is located
outside of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, no housing would be placed within a flood zone as a
result of this project, and no impact would occur.
o) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No Impact. The proposed project site is located outside of the FEMA 100 -year floodplain. Therefore, none
of he proposed facilities would be subject to significant flooding risks; and, therefore, would not be
anticipated to result in impeded or redirected flood flows. No impact would occur.
P) 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?
No Impact. As described above, the entire project area is located outside of the FEMA 100 -year flood zone.
Additionally, the proposed project would not disturb, disrupt, or otherwise contribute to the failure of any
levee, dam, or other flood control structure. Therefore, no impact would occur.
q) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any lakes or other large water bodies that would be
susceptible to seiche, in the event of seismic activity. Additionally, the project site is not located in the
vicinity of any tidally- influenced waters, and is at an elevation above 65 feet sea level. Therefore, the project
area would not be susceptible to tsunami. Finally, the project area is situated in the central portion of the City
of Arcadia within a large, open expanse of flat topography. As such, the area is not susceptible to large -scale
mudflows. No impact would occur.
Issues:
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
Rumak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 32 of 50 FORM "T"
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ N
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Arcadia at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Santa Clara Street and Santa Anita Avenue. The project site is surrounded on all sides by a
developed environment, lmmediately to the north and west, the project site is bordered by Santa Clara Street.
To the south, the project site is bounded by Huntington Drive. To the west, the site is bordered by the existing
Rusnak car dealership. Properties to the east of the project site are zoned CBD and are developed with
commercial, office, and retail land uses.
Discussion
a) Physically divide an established community?
No Impact. The project would be located within an existing commercial zone of the City. Moreover, the
project would be located immediately adjacent to the existing Rusnak car dealership. The proposed project
would be consistent with the existing uses in the surrounding area. Development of the Property to expand the
existing Rusnak dealership would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the existing community by
interrupting access or development of physical barriers. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project?
No Impact. The project site is designated Commercial in the City's General Plan. According to the City's
General Plan, the Commercial land use designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses
which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial
enterprises, including among other things, durable goods. Vehicles are durable goods. Further, the car
dealership show room and service center are both commercial enterprises designed to serve the neighborhood
and citywide markets. Therefore, the use is consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the site.
Moreover, the project is consistent with the site's CBD and C -2 zoning designations because the showroom
will include business offices and because the car dealership is a retail establishment. The project will need a
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval prior to submittal of a building permit.
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation
plan?
No Impact. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community
Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that cover habitats
located within the City of Arcadia. There would, therefore, be no conflict with any such provisions with the
proposed project. No impact would occur.
Rummak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 33 of 50 FORM "J"
Issues:
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally - important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Environmental Setting
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
Based on the California Department of Conservation maps, there are no oil, gas, or geothermal resources in the
City of Arcadia or the surrounding area (DOGGR 2001). No known mineral resources are located within or
adjacent to the project site.
Discussion
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The project site is not located within a mapped mineral resource zone. No loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would occur.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan that include the project site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Issues:
Xli. 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?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
❑ ❑ ® ❑
Rusnak Purchase and sale Agreement — 419113 Page 34 of 50 FORM "J"
b) Exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
C) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
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?
Environmental Setting
❑
❑
❑
❑
® ❑
® ❑
■ �QR
The project site is located in the urban core of the City of Arcadia along a commercial strip that is currently
built out. There are sensitive receptors to the northwest of the project but these receptors are closer to the
existing car sales use. The existing noise environment is primarily influenced by transportation noise from
vehicle traffic on the local roadway system (i.e., Santa Clara Street, Santa Anita Avenue, and Huntington
Drive). Other noise sources that contribute to the existing noise environment include adjacent commercial
enterprises, parking lots, and residences. Transportation related sources are also considered sources of
vibration in the project area. Applicable regulations are contained in the City of Arcadia General Plan Noise
Element.
The Environmental Hazards chapter of the current Arcadia General Plan evaluates natural and man-made
hazards in the project area and determines appropriate levels of protection through hazard reduction programs
for noise, among other things. The Environmental Hazards chapter is the guiding document for the City's
noise policy and contains policies designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent
noise intrusions. Table 4.11 -3 in the General Plan provides the City's exterior and interior noise levels for
each land use category. Below is an excerpt from Table 4.11 -3 regarding the interior and exterior noise
standards for Commercial and Business Park land uses.
Rusrak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 35 of 50 FORM "J"
EXCERPT FROM TABLE 4.11 -3 OF CITY GENERAL PLAN
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS
Land Use
Noise Level
Interior (Le Exterior CNEL
Commercial and Business Park:
Private Office
45
-
General Office
50
-
Restaurant, Retail Store, etc
55
-
Warehousing/Industrial
65
-
Discussion
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?
C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
Short Term Construction Noise
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project would
fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of usage for the varying equipment. The
effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day,
noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise
environment in the receptor's vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each phase
requiring a specific complement of equipment with varying equipment type, quantity, and intensity. These
variations in the operational characteristics of the equipment change the effect they have on the noise
environment of the project site and in the surrounding community for the duration of the construction process.
To assess noise levels associated with the various equipment types and operations, construction equipment can
be considered to operate in two modes, mobile and stationary. Mobile equipment sources move around a
construction site performing tasks in a recurring manner (e.g., loaders, graders, dozers). Stationary equipment
operates in a given location for an extended period of time to perform continuous or periodic operations.
Operational characteristics of heavy construction equipment are additionally typified by short periods of full -
power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling, or powered -off conditions.
Additionally when construction- related noise levels are being evaluated, activities that occur during the more
noise - sensitive evening and nighttime hours are of increased concern. Because exterior ambient noise levels
typically decrease during the late evening and nighttime hours as traffic volumes and commercial activities
decrease, construction activities performed during these more noise- sensitive periods of the day can result in
increased annoyance and potential sleep disruption for occupants of nearby residential uses.
Rumak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 36 of 50 FORM " Y
The site preparation phase typically generates the most substantial noise levels because the on -site equipment
associated with grading, compacting, and excavation are the noisiest. Site preparation equipment and
activities include backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, and excavation equipment (e.g., graders and scrapers).
Erection of large structural elements and mechanical systems could require the use of a crane for placement
and assembly tasks, which may also generate louder noise levels.
Based on the information provided in the project description, demolition of the existing buildings and
construction of the proposed project would require the types of construction equipment listed in Table N01- 1.
It is expected that maximum noise levels would be associated with site preparation activities using excavators
and graders. Noise emission levels at 50 feet from these types of construction equipment are shown in Table
N0I -1 below.
Based on the information provided in Table NOI -1 and accounting for typical usage factors of individual
pieces of equipment and activity types along with standard attenuation rates, on -site construction - related
activities could result in hourly average noise levels of approximately 65 dBA Leq (70 dBA "J at the nearest
sensitive receptors (100 yards away). These modeled noise levels would not exceed the applicable daytime
and nighttime performance standards defined by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element.
Consistent with the City's standard policies, the proposed project would be conditioned to comply with the
City's standard hours of construction of Monday through Saturday from 7 AM to 7 PM.
Therefore, short-term on -site construction source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact would be less than
significant.
Long Term Operational Stationary Source Noise
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of the
existing Rusnak car dealership, which would result in mobile source noise impacts as well as stationary source
noise impacts from the new dealership. However, general operation of this commercial use in this
commercially zoned area would not exceed the applicable daytime or nighttime performance standards defined
by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, long -term on -site operational- related
mobile- source and stationary - source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement -- 4/9/13 Page 37 of 50 FORM "J"
Table NOI -1
Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment
Equipment Type
Reference Level (L. dBA) @ 50 feet
Crane
85
Loader
80
Telehandler
85
Backhoe
80
Excavator
85
Grader
85
Asphalt Paver
85
Roller
85
Manlift
85
Truck (cement or water)
84 -85
Notes:
Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise
levels listed are manufacture- specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment.
Source: FHWA 2006
Based on the information provided in Table NOI -1 and accounting for typical usage factors of individual
pieces of equipment and activity types along with standard attenuation rates, on -site construction - related
activities could result in hourly average noise levels of approximately 65 dBA Leq (70 dBA "J at the nearest
sensitive receptors (100 yards away). These modeled noise levels would not exceed the applicable daytime
and nighttime performance standards defined by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element.
Consistent with the City's standard policies, the proposed project would be conditioned to comply with the
City's standard hours of construction of Monday through Saturday from 7 AM to 7 PM.
Therefore, short-term on -site construction source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact would be less than
significant.
Long Term Operational Stationary Source Noise
Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of the
existing Rusnak car dealership, which would result in mobile source noise impacts as well as stationary source
noise impacts from the new dealership. However, general operation of this commercial use in this
commercially zoned area would not exceed the applicable daytime or nighttime performance standards defined
by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore, long -term on -site operational- related
mobile- source and stationary - source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement -- 4/9/13 Page 37 of 50 FORM "J"
levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact is considered less than significant.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project may result in varying degrees of
temporary groundbome vibration and noise, depending on the specific construction equipment used and
activities involved. Groundbome vibration and noise levels associated with various types of consttruction
equipment and activities are summarized in Table N01-2. Based on the information provided in the project
description and on the types of construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g., site
preparation and building erection) it is expected that maximum groundbome vibration and noise levels would
be associated with mobile sources.
According to Federal Transit Administration, levels associated with the use of trucks are 0.076 inches per
second (in/sec) and 86 vibration decibels (VdB) at 25 feet. Based on FTA's recommended procedure for
applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, construction - related project activities would not
result in levels at the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., 100 yards) that exceed Caltrans's recommended level of
0.2 in/see PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA's maximum
acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance). Long -term
operation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of vibration. Thus, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in the exposure of existing off -site sensitive receptors to excessive
groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. As explained above, the nearest airport is the El Monte Airport. The El Monte Airport is a
general aviation airport. All Runway Protection Zones for the El Monte Airport are located within the City of
El Monte. However, the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport extends into the southern portion of
the City of Arcadia. The project site is not located within the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport.
Thus, the proposed project would not be located within two miles of a public (or public use) airport or within
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 38 of 50 FORM " F
Table NOI -2
Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet (in/sec;
Approximate 1, (VdB) at 25 feet
Blasting
1.13
109
Large Dozer
0.089
87
Caisson Drilling
0.089
87
Trucks
0.076
86
Rock Breaker
0.059
83
Jackhammer
0.035
79
Small Dozer
0.003
58
1 where PPV is the peak particle velocity
2 Where Lv is the root mean square velocity
expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming
a crest factor of 4.
Source: FTA 2006
According to Federal Transit Administration, levels associated with the use of trucks are 0.076 inches per
second (in/sec) and 86 vibration decibels (VdB) at 25 feet. Based on FTA's recommended procedure for
applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, construction - related project activities would not
result in levels at the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., 100 yards) that exceed Caltrans's recommended level of
0.2 in/see PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA's maximum
acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance). Long -term
operation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of vibration. Thus, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in the exposure of existing off -site sensitive receptors to excessive
groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing
or worldng in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. As explained above, the nearest airport is the El Monte Airport. The El Monte Airport is a
general aviation airport. All Runway Protection Zones for the El Monte Airport are located within the City of
El Monte. However, the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport extends into the southern portion of
the City of Arcadia. The project site is not located within the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport.
Thus, the proposed project would not be located within two miles of a public (or public use) airport or within
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 38 of 50 FORM " F
the vicinity of a private airstrip. In addition, the proposed project site is not located within a comprehensive
land use plan for the El Monte Airport. The project would result in no impact in this regard.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population ❑ 1:1
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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
The California Department of Finance, Demographic research unit estimates that the total population in the
City of Arcadia as of April 1, 2010 was 56,364 (Department of Finance 2011).
Discussion
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly?
No Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component. Therefore, the proposed project
would not directly induce population growth. However, the project does involve expanding an existing
commercial enterprise. According to information provided by the project proponent, the expanded auto
dealership would provide 50 new jobs within the City of Arcadia. The addition of these 50 jobs, however,
would not directly or indirectly cause population growth because the wages associated with the positions do
not match the housing costs for the area. Wages would be substantially lower than the high cost of residential
real estate and rental properties. Therefore, to the extent that the project would add 50 jobs to the City of
Arcadia, it is unlikely that the positions will be filled by the City's residents. Thus, the project would have no
impact in this regard.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Na Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in displacement of existing
housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.
C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Ausnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419/13 Page 39 of 50 FORM V'
No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of
people. Therefore, no impact would occur.
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?
❑
❑
®
❑
Environmental Setting
The nearest fire station to the project site is Arcadia Fire Station #106 at 710 South Santa Anita Avenue, which
is approximately one mile from the project site. Arcadia Police Department provides police services for the
City. The nearest police station is located at 250 West Huntington Drive, approximately one -half mile from
the site. The project site lies within the boundaries of the Arcadia Unified School District. The District
operates six elementary schools, three middle schools, and one comprehensive high schools. The nearest
schools to the project site is Arroyo Pacific Academy (private), which is located approximately 100 yards from
the site. The nearest City park is Arcadia County Park, which is located one - quarter of a mile from the
project site. Amenities at the park include a swimming pool, active fields and play areas, tennis courts, and
open green space.
Rusr,A Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 40 of 50 FORM 4G7"
Discussion
a) Result in a substantial adverse physical impact 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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of a currently vacant retail
establishment. The Property and surrounding parcels will be significantly improved by the proposed project.
As a result, the proposed project would require less municipal services than the currently vacant site. The
proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on emergency, police, or fire services during
project construction or operation because it would not increase the demand for these services beyond what is
currently required by the current vacant retail establishment. No new or expanded public service facilities or
services would be required. Therefore, this is a less than significant impact.
Issues:
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
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?
Environmental Setting
❑ ❑ ❑
No
Impact
'/ 1
/1
The nearest City park is Arcadia County Park, which is located one quarter mile from the project site.
Amenities at the park include a swimming pool, active fields and sports areas, tennis courts, and open green
space.
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Impact. As the proposed project is a commercial enterprise, it would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Consequently, the project would not result in
a substantial deterioration of the City's existing recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact in
this regard.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 414113 Page 41 of 50 FORM "]"
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑ ❑ ❑
No
Impact
'/ 1
/1
The nearest City park is Arcadia County Park, which is located one quarter mile from the project site.
Amenities at the park include a swimming pool, active fields and sports areas, tennis courts, and open green
space.
Discussion
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
No Impact. As the proposed project is a commercial enterprise, it would not increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Consequently, the project would not result in
a substantial deterioration of the City's existing recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact in
this regard.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 414113 Page 41 of 50 FORM "]"
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact. The project would not increase demands for recreational facilities because no new population
growth or housing would occur as a result of the project. Therefore, there would not be a need for construction
or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur_
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ L1 ® ❑
ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including
mass transit and non - motorized
travel and relevant components of
the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets,
highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable ® L1
congestion management program,
including, but not limited to, level of
service standards and travel demand
measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
C) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ E] ❑
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due El 11
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Rusrak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 42 of 50 FORM "J"
f) Conflict with adopted policies, 11 ❑
puns, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities?
Environmental Setting
Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 210 (I -210), a major north -south route interstate
highway. Three major local roadways provide access to the project site. Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara
Street, and Huntington Drive. Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive are both Principal Travel Corridors
according to the City of Arcadia Circulation Element. At the project site, Santa Anita Avenue is designated as
a four (4) lane divided roadway whereas Huntington Drive is designated as four (4) land undivided roadway.
Morlan Place is a local commercial street, with one lane in each direction.
Discussion
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for
the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Arcadia General Plan, Arcadia's goal is to ensure
mobility within and through the City by maintaining LOS D or better along most roadways where feasible.
LOS D is commonly used by cities throughout the nation, and has been used in project -level review by the
City of Arcadia. Establishment of the LOS D standard recognizes that some congestion will occur during peak
hours, but that roadways will function at much better levels of service during the balance of the day. (General
Plan 2010.)
Under the LOS D standard, cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks.
There are no long - standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak
periods. The associated volume to capacity ratio is 0.801 - 0.900. (General Plan 2010.)
A Traffic Study was completed for this project by Kimley Horn and Associates (dated January 9, 2013).
Implementation of the project would result in a temporary increase in vehicle traffic on Santa Anita Avenue,
Santa Clara Street, Huntington Drive and Morlan Place associated with short-term construction - related
activities. A maximum of 30 construction workers would commute to the site on a daily basis; therefore, the
project would result in the generation of 60 construction - worker trips per day.
Proposed construction - related trips would result in a minor increase (i.e., less than .3 %) in traffic along local
roadways. Level of service and the volume/capacity ratio would not be impacted by the project. Therefore,
impacts associated with short-term traffic increases attributable to project construction would not conflict with
the applicable General Plan policies regarding traffic. This impact would be less- than - significant.
As indicated above, the project would result in 6 new full -time, which would result in the generation of 14 net
neiv employee trips per day. The proposed operational- related trips would result in a minor increase in traffic
along roadways. Level of service and the volume to capacity ratio would be substantially the same at all
impacted intersections. Therefore, long -term increases in operational traffic attributable to the project would
not conflict with the applicable General Plan policies regarding traffic. This impact would be less -than-
sig- ificant.
Rus .ak Purchase and Sale .Agreement — 419113 Page 43 of 50 FORM " J"
Automobile sales uses are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Through this process, specific parking
requirements are required based on the operational plan proposed. Arcadia Municipal Code section 9269.5
requires that retail uses provide 5 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area dedicated to
the retail use. With approximately 25,000 square feet of showroom proposed, 125 parking spaces would be
required for this portion of the site. The remaining 80,000 square feet of service area and 14,000 of remaining
employee area would be considered under the industrial /warehouse category of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
This portion of the use would require 188 parking spaces. Taken together, 313 parking spaces could be
required. The proposed project would include 456 parking spaces. Therefore, this impact would be less than
significant
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to, level
of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Less Than Significant Impact. Metro is the agency responsible for oversight and implementation of the
Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. The 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan
provides mobility for Los Angeles County's future by providing new travel options that will serve the County
for the next 30 years and beyond. It will improve highway speeds by almost 20 percent and arterial speeds by
15 percent countywide over the no -build scenario. (Metro 2010.) As described in response to threshold (a)
above, short-term traffic impacts would be minor relative to existing traffic along the following local arterials
Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street, Huntington Drive and Morlan Place. Over the long -term, proposed
traffic volumes would be indistinguishable from existing traffic conditions because only six net new
employees would regularly come to the site. In addition, because the proposed use is an improvement and
upgrade from the existing use, increases in customer and service traffic will be an insignificant increase from
current levels. The proposed project would not impact any roads, highways, or other infrastructure covered
by the Congestion Management Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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?
No Impact. The nearest public airport, El Monte Airport, is located approximately 5.5 miles from the project
site. The proposed project does not include any structures of significant height or include any activities that
would affect air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact to air traffic patterns would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No Impact. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed. The development
envelope would not extend beyond the existing built environment. No changes to the existing roadways would
occur. Therefore, the project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No
impact would occur.
e) Result in inadequate emergency capacity?
No Impact. All construction activity would remain on -site and would not require the closure of any nearby
roadways at any time during construction. The project would provide two points of emergency access to and
from the site consistent with City policies. Therefore, there would be no impact in this regard.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,
bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
No Impact. The project would not generate the need for alternative transportation. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and no
impact would occur.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 44 of 50 FORM "J"
Issues:
❑
XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would
the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
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?
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 City 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).
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?
f)
Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
n
U
LE
FE
U
❑
❑
❑
❑
No
Impact
ANNEMN
❑■
■❑
//
L/ 4
/1
L/
❑0
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 45 of 50 FORM 441"
Environmental Setting
STORM DRAINAGE
The City of Arcadia Public Works Division is responsible for operation and management of the City storm
drain system.
WASTEWATER AND SEWER
Wastewater conveyance is handled by the City and the LACSD, and wastewater is processed (treated) by the
Los Angeles Community Services District.
WATER SUPPLY
The City of Arcadia supplies water to the majority of development within its corporate boundaries, with
approximately 13,400 service connections. Approximately 96 percent of the City is served by the Arcadia
water system. Other water suppliers in the City include the Sunny Slope Water Company, East Pasadena
Water Company, San Gabriel Valley Water Company (SGVWC), California- American Water Company
(CAWC), and the Golden State Water Company (GSWC, formerly Southern California Water Company),
which serve small areas along the western and southern boundaries of the City and its Sphere of Influence
(SOI) (Stetson 2010). Exhibit 4.16 -1 shows the service area of the various water companies serving the City.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Solid waste collection services in the City are provided by private haulers for disposal at area landfills. Waste
Management, Inc. (WM) serves single - family residential uses, while multi - family and non - residential uses are
served by various commercial waste haulers. Programs that help reduce the amount of residential wastes sent
to local landfills include fully automated green waste collection and recycling, weekly recyclables collection,
extensive consumer education and information on the City's website, and composting assistance (Hogle-
Ireland 2010).
The nearest landfill to the City is the Puente Hills Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). This
facility is owned and operated by the LACSD, and encompasses 1,365 acres with 433 acres of disposal area.
The Puente Hills Landfill is permitted to accept 13,200 tons per day (tpd) and currently accepts approximately
9,330 tpd. In 2006, it had a permitted capacity of 106 mullion cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 49
million cubic yards (CIWMB 2009). The MRF is a buy -back center that accepts aluminum cans, glass, plastic
containers, steel cans, newspapers, cardboard, and electronic wastes of approximately 600 tpd (LACSD 2009).
Hazardous materials must be disposed of or transported to a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Class III
landfills cannot accept hazardous materials; these must be disposed in a Class I and Class II facility. There are
no Class I or Class II landfills in the County of Los Angeles. However, there are two Class I and/or Class II
landfills that exist in Central and Southern California that can accept hazardous waste generated within Los
Angeles County, identified below:
Ketdeman Hills Landfill, Kettleman City, Kings County, California. This is a Class I and Class II
permitted landfill that accepts both hazardous and non - hazardous waste with a daily permitted capacity
of 8,000 tpd and a remaining capacity of 6 million cubic yards as of 2000 (CalRecycle 2010c).
Mc%ittrick Waste Treatment Site, McKittrick, Kern County, California. This facility is a Class II
permitted landfill that accepts both hazardous and non - hazardous waste with a daily permitted capacity
of 1,180 tpd and a remaining capacity of approximately 840,000 cubic yards as of 2001 (CalRecycle
2010d).
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 46 of 50 FORM 41"
Arcadia Reclamation, Inc. operates an inert materials landfill on the former Rodeffer quarry site adjacent to the
Interstate 605 (I -605) Freeway at the southeastern end of Arcadia. This site accepts concrete, asphalt, clean
dirt, brick, block, rock, sand, rebar, stucco, and reinforced concrete pipe, most of which generally can be
classified as construction debris. Once filled, the site is expected to be redeveloped with industrial and/or
commercial uses (Hogle- Ireland 2010).
Discussion
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above, the proposed project would be required to comply with
all current wastewater and N1PDES permitting requirements. As a result, the proposed project would not
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and this impact would
be less than significant.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No Impact. As explained above, the proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or an expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact in
this regard.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project can be served by existing facilities. As the site is currently developed with
impervious surfaces, the proposed project would not substantially change the drainage of the site. Therefore,
the proposed project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion
of existing facilities. Thus, no impacts would occur.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
No Impact. The proposed project would not demand more water than what is currently necessary to serve the
existing uses on the Property and at the Rusnak dealership. Thus, the project would not result in substantial
water demands that would require new resources. Therefore, no new or expanded water supplies would be
needed and no impact would occur.
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?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to connect to the local sewer system.
Consistent with the City's standard practice, through the Conditional Use Permit and building permit process,
the City's water and wastewater departments will verify adequate capacity and service levels. As the proposed
project does not propose uses that would demand greater wastewater services than the current uses, the
proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would generate minimal solid waste related to
excess construction materials and material removed during demolition and site clearing. The quantity of solid
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 47 of 50 FORM 4155
waste is not anticipated to affect the capacity of the landfills that serve the City. Disposal of all waste would
comply with applicable regulations, including disposal of hazardous materials. As a result, landfill and solid
waste impacts would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the response to threshold (f) above.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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?
b) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ IK
to achieve short -term environmental
goals to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals?
C) 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 projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion
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
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419113 Page 48 of 50 FORM "J"
self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this
Initial Study, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts as a result of construction of
the proposed project, and would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. However,
adoption and implementation of mitigation measures described in this Initial Study would reduce these
individual impacts to less - than - significant levels. With regard to all other resources discussed in the Initial
Study, impacts would either be less than significant or would have no impact on the existing environment.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long -term environmental goals?
Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the
disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. As explained above, the proposed project would comply with
federal, state and local regulations designed to protect the long -term integrity of the environment. Given the
infill and redevelopment nature of the project, it will help to alleviate conditions of blight, which have
potential to cause substantial environmental harm. Moreover, the proposed project would either have no
impact or a less than significant impact in nearly every resource category. To the extent that a potential impact
coald occur to cultural resources, those potential impacts would be fully mitigated with the measures
incorporated into this MND.
C) 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 projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative environmental effects are multiple
individual effects that, when considered together, would be considerable or compound or increase other
environmental impacts. Individual effects may result from a single project or a number of separate projects
and may occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of time.
The purpose of the proposed project is to develop the Property in order to eliminate and prevent blight within
the urban core of the City. Through the redevelopment of the project site, the property would be utilized to its
maximum potential so as to benefit the City's business and civic environments. A related benefit of the
project is that it would attract additional businesses and investment in the community due to the availability of
the increased public and private services and economic activity resulting therefrom. The proposed project
would not change existing water demands or uses not already planned for and would not affect population
growth either directly or indirectly. In addition, construction, operation, and maintenance will not result in any
substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers /employees. Implementation of the mitigation measures
proposed in this Initial Study would reduce the project's impacts to a less - than - significant level, further
reducing the project's contribution to environmental impacts to less than cumulatively considerable.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant. No project - related environmental effects were identified that would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings. This would be a less than significant impact.
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.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 4/9/13 Page 49 of 50 FORM "J"
4. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan, 2011
5. City of Arcadia, Noise Regulations, Chapter 6, Article IV, of City of Arcadia Municipal Code
6. Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates, January 9, 2013
7. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2005. California Environmental Quality Act Air
Handbook
8. California Emissions Estimator Model, 2011 SCAQMD.
Rusnak Purchase and Sale Agreement — 419/ l3 Page 50 of 50 FORM 66F