Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 5, 2000- A N N O T A T E D • A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting September 5, 2000 5:00 p.m. Council Chambers Conference Room ACTION ROLL CALL: Council /Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic All presen TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL OR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RE: 5:00 P.M. SESSION (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) No one spoke 2. CLOSED SESSION - CITY COUNCIL At 5:04 the A ency Council RECgESSED Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss potential litigation - on a�ee�iy' ession 3. CLOSED SESSION - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8) Property: Property Owner: 55 W. Huntington Dr. William Adkins 21 Morlan PI. Hann Ling Shaw 28 W. Santa Clara St. Ellsworth Dahlgren 121, 145, 155 N. Santa Anita Ave. Ohannes Berberian 101 N. Santa Anita Ave. Walter Griffin 41 W. Huntington Dr. Robert Johannsen 35 W. Huntington Dr. Gary & Dan Braun 27 W. Huntington Dr. Richard Gretebeck 25 N. Santa Anita Ralph Wolveck 11, 15, 19 W. Huntington Dr. Gary Barringer 5 W. Huntington Dr. Anthony Fanticola Negotiating Parties - Agency: Deputy Executive Director Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment 4. STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED the city Council /Agency at 5: 0 p.14• . a. Report, discussion and direction regarding a request from a Homeowner's ssoclatlon to place a sign in the Santa Anita Avenue Median. Approved 5 -0 b. Report, discussion and direction regarding a Habitat for Humanitky Housing Program. Retain bro er return in days with feasibility study of housing sites C. Report, discussion and direction regarding the placement of banners in the public right -of -Way. Study Session to be set RECESSED Study Session at 6:55, RECONVENED in the Gary A. Kovacic, Mayor • Mickey Segal, Mayor Protempore • Roger Chandler, Dr. Shang Chang, Gail A. Marshall, Council Members William R. Kelly, City Manager Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. June D. Alford, City Clerk ,, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers ACTION INVOCATION Pastor Dan Earp, Calvary Chapel of Arcadia PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE JoAnn Scott, Executive Director, Arcadia Red Cross ROLL CALL: Council Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic All present 5. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive Adopted 5 -0 reading in full. 6. PRESENTATION to outgoing Planning Commission Member John Sleeter. 7. , PRESENTATION of Mayor's Community Service Award to Kay Tseng. 8. PRESENTATION of Mayor's Senior Service Award to Vern and Eileen Hubbard. 9. PRESENTATION to Gunderson Chevrolet, Arcadia Service Center, Sno- Valiey Camper Shells and Craigar Designs for their contributions to the G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education and Training) Program. 10. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed item of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to the proposed items 10a, 10b, 10c, 10d and 10e you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the public hearing. Pub. Hrg. Closed a. Recommendation to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report and Adopt Res.6197 5 -0 application GP99 -001, Z99 -003 and TA99 -006 to allow the expansion & Res. 6198 5 -0 of the Westfield Shopping Town.Approve FEIR, GP 99 -001, Z 99 -003, TA 99 -006, to allow (For additional modifications see Minutes) expansion 5 -0 Pub. Hrg. Closed b. Recommendation to Adopt Ordinance No. 2128, an ordinance of the City Adopt _ _ O_,, s -n Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to permit crematories in C -0 or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. C. Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No. 2129, an ordinance of the Pub• Hrg. Closed City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the Arcadia Intro.Ord 2129 5 -0 Municipal Code by adding a new Chapter 10 to Article VII establishing industrial waste regulations and associated fees; and Pub. Hrg. Closed Recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 6194, a resolution of the City I„r,-„ ()rA 9129& Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing industrial waste Adopt Res. 6194 permit and other related service fees. opp shall osedj Public Hearing continued ACTION Pub. Hrg. Closed d. Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No. 2130, an ordinance of the Tnfro - Ord - 9130 & City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, adding Sections 7823(k) and Adopt Res. 61195 4 -0 w /Marsha 1 7824 and amending Section 8130.11 of the Arcadia Municipal Code abstaining pertaining to the implementation of storm water and urban runoff controls for new construction, and imposing service fees; and Recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 6195, a resolution of the City Ado Ft Rea" 195 a -0 sTT -1 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing storm water and abstaining urban runoff controls for new construction and service fees related thereto. e. Recommendation to deny an appeal of the Planning Commission's Pub. Hrg. Closed condition of approval for two, internally illuminated channel letter wall 4-1 (Kovaci�al signs for TCM Healing Institute (Case No. SADR 2000 -014) on the opposed) two -story office building at 801 W. Huntington Drive. 11. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER John MacDonnell PERSON) 12. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items see minutes RECESS CITY COUNCIL 13. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic All Present TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (NON- PUBLIC HEARING /FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None a. Minutes of the August 1, 2000 and August 15, 2000 Regular meetings. Approved 5 -0 ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to September 19, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 14. CITY CLERK Recommendation to appoint one member to the Planning Commission to fill an Appointed David unexpired term. of Sohn Sleeter. Olson to 6 -30 -03 3 ACTION 15. CONSENT a. Minutes of the August 1, 2000 and August 15, 2000 Regular meetings. Approved 5 -0 b. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution No. 6185, a resolution of the'City Adopted 5 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the 2000 -2001 . fiscal year to pay for the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City's Lighting and Parking District. C. Recommendation to approve Final Map 53071 for an 8 -unit residential Approved 5 -0 condominium project at 18 Fano. d. Recommendation to appropriate $50,000.00 from the Capital Outlay Fund Approved 9-0 Balance to add a utility room to Fire Station 107 for the storage of firefighter apparel and equipment. e. Recommendation to award a one -year contract extension in the amount Approved 5 -0 of $60,000.00 to National Plant Services, Inc. for closed circuit television inspection services of the Sanitary Sewer System for fiscal year 2000 -2001. Recommendation to appropriate $17,000.00 of Proposition A Local Return Approved 5 -0 Funds for recreational transit excursions in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. g. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Approved 5 -0 Professional Services Agreement for management information system services provided by Knight Communications. h. ' Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Approved 5 -0 Professional Services Agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services for an operations evaluation, service assessment and resource utilization study for the Arcadia Public Library. Recommendation to purchase two (2) 2000 Type III E -450 super duty rescue ambulances for the Fire Department from Road Rescue for $216,067.00. Recommendation to award a contract to RVC Corporation in the amount Approved 5 -0 of $78,135.58 for the rehabilitation of Second Avenue from Longden Avenue South to the south City limit. k. Recommendation to renew a Professional Services Agreement in the Approved 5 -0 amount of $36,000.00 with Joe A. Gonsalves & Son for legislative . advocacy services. S 16. CITY MANAGER ACTION a. Recommendation to approve the receipt of $20,000.00 from the Arcadia Agproved 5 -0 Public Library Foundation for the enhancement and refurbishment of the south patio of the Library; and Recommendation to approve the concept plan as submitted by the Arcadia Public Library Foundation for the enhancement and refurbishment of the south patio of the Library. Recommendation to authorize the Recreation and Community Services Approved 5 -0 Department to implement new youth programs using $75,000.00 of the (new) $125,000.00 budget allocation for FY 2000 -2001. 17. CITY ATTORNEY a. Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No. 2131, an ordinance of the Tatroduced 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Article VII, Chapter 2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to sweeping sidewalk refuse into streets. b. Recommendation to Introduce Ordinance No. 2121, an ordinance of the introduced 5 -0 City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Article IX, Chapter 4 of,the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to property maintenance and nuisance abatement. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL to September 19, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at 1:28 a.m. , September 6th, in Memory of Teresa Rager 5 ►- STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: 4fDon Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS FOR WELCOMING SIGN IN SANTA ANITA AVENUE MEDIAN SUMMARY The City received a request from the Board of Directors of the Highlands Home Owners Association and The Oaks Homeowners Association to install a Welcome Sign in the median on Santa Anita Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard (Attachment A). Staff has researched the request and has presented that information in this report. There does not appear to be any precedent for this type of request in Arcadia nor is it currently permitted by Code. The City Council will need to determine if you wish to approve this request and if co, under what conditions. BACKGROUND The Boards of Directors of the Highlands Home Owners Association and The Oaks Homeowners Association have requested approval to install a Welcome Sign in the Santa Anita Avenue median north of Sycamore Avenue. The sign would be approximately 14' wide and 5' high, though it would actually reach 7 feet in height as there is about 2 feet of clear space from the ground up to the bottom of the sign. It would be constructed of sandblasted redwood, with the names of the two homeowner associations and a Welcome salutation (Attachment B). The Associations are requesting approval for installation of the sign in the median, as well as City cooperation in funding of the installation, construction of a brick planter, and paying for ongoing watering and lighting costs. DISCUSSION The Santa Anita Avenue median north of Sycamore Avenue, where the sign is proposed, is 30 feet wide from curb to curb. (The Association letter indicates it is 36 fleet, staff field measured it and 30 feet is the correct width.) The sign is proposed to be about 14 feet wide and 7 above the ground, with a total sign area of 98 square feet. ->J, "PMAGED iNw Wo The map submitted by the associations (Attachment C) shows the proposed location, though it does not illustrate the street offset at the intersection. Attachment D, prepared by staff shows the offset of Sycamore east and west of Santa Anita Avenue. Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4912.1 addresses use of the median and is provided as Attachment E. In summary, the Code states that no handbill or sign shall be placed upon any public right -of -way and median, parkways, public easements, parks, civic center property, sidewalk crosswalk, or other public property. The Code does not distinguish between signs for non - profit or private entities. One exception to the above is for temporary election signs in certain residential zones. The other exception is for temporary directional signs on City parkways and medians for events sponsored by non - profit organizations. These temporary signs may be placed for a period no more than two (2) days prior to the scheduled event and must be removed within twenty -four (24) hours of the event. Therefore, based on the Code, should the Council wish to approve this sign, the Municipal Code may need to be amended. Notwithstanding the above, there are examples where permanent signs have been placed in the public right -of -way for non - profit organizations. The Chamber of Commerce has a sign in the Santa Anita Avenue median south of Colorado Boulevard and there are locations in Arcadia where directional signs have been placed for churches. The City currently has five (5) homeowner associations, all north of Huntington Drive. Attachment F is a map of the association areas. At this time none of them have identification signs. The associations are requesting the following: 1. Permission to install a permanent sign in the right -of -way; 2. City financial assistance in the installation of the sign and brick planter; 3. City maintenance including landscaping and on -going irrigation and lighting costs (the proposal does not address whether they would want the City to maintain the sign). Staff has identified the following issues related to this request that the City Council may wish to consider in your deliberations: Arcadia Municipal Code Prohibitions The Arcadia Municipal Code currently does not allow for permanent signs to be placed in the right -of -way. However, as noted above, there have been exceptions and staff is not aware of the circumstances of how those signs were approved. If the Council wishes to approve the homeowner association (HOA) sign, then consideration should be given to amending the Code. K %W Precedent The requested sign would identify two of the five (5) HOA's in the community. It is possible that the other three might request a sign for their association. Additionally, other nonprofit groups that have facilities in the community may request a sign as well. The City Council should consider whether approval of this request would set a precedent for other HOA' s and possibly other organizations in the community. Setting a precedent is not necessarily negative; it is simply a matter of whether the Council wishes to see signs of this nature in the right -of -way. Size and Location of Sign In reviewing the specifics of the sign, staff believes it is aesthetically attractive and well designed. However, some concern exists regarding the overall size and location of the sign. From the ground to the top of the sign, it will be about seven (7) high. Additionally, with fourteen (14) feet of width, it will cover almost half of the width of the median. Staff also has concerns with the proposed location just north of Sycamore. Santa Anita Avenue carries a significant amount of traffic, particularly during peak AM and PM times. There is also a fair amount of left and U -turn movement at Sycamore. A sign that is seven (7) high may cause some visibility problems where it is proposed. City Contribution The HOA letter requests City financial assistance with the installation of the sign, brick planter and on -going watering and lighting. The Council should consider whether it is appropriate to financially assist with an HOA sign, both with the initial (one -time) construction as well as an ongoing basis (watering and lighting, and general maintenance). If the Council chooses to do so, then it is probable that if other HOA's requested a sign, they would also request City financial assistance. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives available to the City Council include the following: 1. Deny the request for a permanent sign in the right -of -way 2. Approve the request as submitted and provide financial assistance 3. Approve the request, but do not provide any financial assistance 4. Approve the concept, but do not provide any financial assistance and reduce the size /square footage of the sign and change the location Staff does not have a recommendation regarding the request for placement of the sign in the right -of -way. We do have concerns as noted as to the issues referenced above. Subsequent to the request, staff discussed the matter with a representative of the HOA, who indicated they are flexible regarding the issues of size and location of the sign. Should the Council approve the request, staff would recommend against any financial assistance in the installation and other one -time expenses. It is staffs view that the sign 3 does not serve an overall citywide purpose to justify expenditure of public funds. However, watering and paying the electricity for lighting could be absorbed with essentially no significant financial impact. It is also recommended that should the Council approve the sign, the HOA's provide the City with indemnification and a hold harmless agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. They should also be required to provide regular maintenance of the sign itself and repair it should it be vandalized. The association representative indicated that providing permanent indemnification might be problematic for them. RECOMMENDATION The City Council should determine whether or not to approve the request from the Highlands Home Owners Association and The Oaks Homeowners Association to place a sign in the Santa Anita Avenue median, and if approved, under what conditions. Approved by:— U ►_ N William R. Kelly, City Manager 4 10 � z ATTACHMENT A ► E`: �:._. : Highlands Home Owners Association Jeff Bowen President July 19, 2000 CITY OF ARCADIA Jack Lamp Vice President Bill Kelly JUL 2 12000 John Bigley City Manager Secretary City of Arcadia CITY MANAGER Carol Milner P. O. Box 60021 Treasurer Arcadia, California 91066 Ralph Bicker Re: The Oaks and Highlands Welcome Sign Chairman, Arcitectural Review Board Dear Bill, Craig Bonholtzer Chairman, Disaster Preparedness The Board of Directors of the Highlands Home Owners Association and The Oaks Homeowners Association respect - Jeff Howe ively request the appropriate permits and approvals necessary Chairman, Wilderness Center to install a Welcome Sign at the median divider on Santa Anita, just north of the Sycamore turn -out (see map). The estimated Directors cost of this project is $6240.00, not including installation, per - mits, design review and procurement costs. We feel that this Tom Aikens Carolyn Papp Welcome Sign (approximately 14 x 7 112 feet) will greatly add Howard Spellman to the beauty of the entrance to both areas and compliment the Jim Thomas City and the Homeowners Associations for years to come. The attached drawing of the actual sign is provided for your review along with a diagram of the area of installation. It is felt that the area of Sycamore is more favorable than the conjested area immediately north of Foothill Blvd. We are hopeful that the City of Arcadia will cooperate in the funding of installation, brick planter, watering and lighting as t.d to a a'� _� 20, Post Office Box 660842 00 tl'ti Arcadia, California 91066 04 owner► P� CM M part of their Beautification Program. We are ready to meet with any department you suggest to go over all of the details in full at any time. We look forward to your support of this project and to meeting with you soon. Sincerely, eff Bowen President, Highlands Home Owners Association 1919 Wilson Avenue 626.446.1437 cc: George Bennett President, The Oaks Homeowners Association 13' -10 SANDBLASTED REDWOOD SIGN PANEL I 4 D D C7 2 m z MENT C Scale: 1" = 40' Condition Diagram Santa Anita Ave Sycamore Ave ATTACHMENT E 4912 �w (c) The public property of the City of Arcadia is maintained and utilized for a variety of purposes related to said appearance and the well-being of the community. (d) The regularly scheduled temporary nature of election sign placement is incidental to the afore- mentioned goals of the City and utilization of public property. (e) Property and facilities located within the pub- lic right -of -way, such as utility poles, benches, hydrants, bridges, sidewalks and similar structures are not by tradition or designation a forum for com- munication by the general public, and the Council wishes to preserve these structures for their intend- ed purposes, which is the safe, efficient and pleasant movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and operation of utility systems. (f) The regulations and prohibitions specified in this Section are necessary to preserve the public right -of -way and public property for their intended purposes, and to prevent the visual clutter, blight, and traffic safety hazards caused by temporary signs. 4912.1. PROHIBITION. No person shall paint, mark or write on, or post or otherwise affix, any handbill or sign to or upon any public right -of -way and median, parkways, public easements, parks, civic center property, side- walk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, street lamp post, hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, railroad trestle, electric light or power or telephone or tele- graph or trolley wire pole, or wire appurtenance thereof or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or police telegraph system or upon any lighting sys- tem, public bridge, drinking fountain, lifesaving equipment, street sign or traffic sign, or upon any other object on public property. (a) Exception Regarding Election Signs in Cer- tain Residential Zones. The prohibition set forth in Section 4912.1 shall not apply to temporary election signs in the parkway area of the following residen- tial zones of the City: R -M, R -O, R -1, R -2, and R -3 subject to the requirements set forth in the following Section 4912.1(b). (b) Requirements for Exception to Apply. The above exception shall apply subject to the following requirements: 1. "Parkway area" is defined as that portion of the public right -of -way located between the face of the curb and the front property line. 2. The signs shall not protrude, encroach, or in any way extend over the curb or sidewalk area. 3. The signs must be located in a manner that is safe. They shall not be allowed if it is determined by the City designated Traffic Engineer or Enforce- ment official that the signs pose traffic safety haz- ards by sight line impairment, visual distraction, or in any other manner endanger vehicles or pedestri- ans. 4. Concerning violations of the above, City Enforcement officials shall provide notice to the responsible parties including the adjacent resident affording them an opportunity to correct the prob- lem. Notice shall be in writing and /or by personal contact in a manner that is reasonably calculated to correct the problem and create compliance within a time frame as designated by the enforcement official. 5. If compliance is not achieved pursuant to subsection 4 above, the City may remove the signs pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 4912.2. 6. Failure to comply with the requirements of Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 4912 and 4912.1 shall constitute a misdemeanor. (Amended by Ord. 2065 adopted 1- 21 -97) 4912.2. ENFORCEMENT. Any handbill or sign found posted, or otherwise affixed upon any public property contrary to the provisions of this Section may be removed by the Police Department or the Department of Public Works. The person responsible for any such illegal posting shall be liable for the cost incurred in the removal thereof and the Department of Public Works is authorized to effect the collection of said costs. Any sign, handbill or related item removed by the City may be considered abandoned if it is not retrieved within fifteen (15) calendar days after the (Arcadia 5.97) 174 -2 n reasonable conditions and specifications as deter- mined by the Public Works Director. d. No permit shall be issued until a hold -harm- less agreement and appropriate insurance are pro- vided naming the City as an additional insured, as approved by the Arcadia City Attorney. e. The exception authorized by Section 4912.5 shall apply to one (1) event only for any eligible organization in any calendar year. (Added by Ord. 1979 adopted 11 -3 -92) 4912.6. EXCEPTION. TEMPORARY SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS! PERMITS. PUBLIC PROPERTY. (a) For purposes of this Section, reference to the word sign also means banner. The prohibition set forth in Section 4912.1 is subject to an exception for special events that satisfies the general criteria set forth in this Section and for which special event permits are issued pursuant to the requirements set forth below. Nothing in this Section creates a vested right to any applicant or sets a precedent for special event permits. In view of the inclusive prohibition and underlying rationale set forth in Section 4912 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the granting or denial of a special event permit is totally within the discretion of the City and is not subject to judi- cial review. (b) The exception provided in this Section is in addition to the following three exemptions to Sec- tion 41912.1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code: (1) The allowance of holiday signs pursuant to contract; (2) The allowance of signs on the Huntington Drive Pedestrian Bridge pursuant to special permit and contract; (3) The over - the -street signs that are currently allowed pursuant to business license regulations as adopted by the City Council. (Added by Ord. 2004 adopted 3 -1 -94) �%o 4912.5 4912.6.1. PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. (a) General Criteria. The City may exercise its discretion to consider allowance, on a conditional and limited basis, of signs and banners that involve or commemorate a singular event of a nature that merits special consideration because of its unique character, public interest or other similar factors. Commercial considerations alone will not suffice to meet this criteria. (b) Application Requirements /Special Use Per- mit. (1) Applicant shall pay permit and inspection fees to the City in accordance with the amount set forth by resolution of the City Council for miscel- laneous work and encroachments (per Arcadia Mu- nicipal Code Section 7300.7 et seq.) and shall sub- mit specific information proposing the size, loca- tion, materials, color and number of the proposed signs. This information shall include samples as requested by the City Manager or the Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director. (2) Applicant must provide insurance and hold harmless protection to the City in a form and con- tent that is approved by the City Attorney as a con- dition precedent to granting any permit. (3) Applicant must submit an installation and removal plan that details the installation and remov- al of the signs to the satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager/Development Services Director. (4) Applicant shall provide any other information as deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Deputy City Manager/Development Services Direc- tor consistent with the need to review the request of the applicant. (c) Approval. Upon receipt of a completed appli- cation, the City Manager or his designee may grant, deny or conditionally grant a special permit for exemption from the code prohibition regarding signs on public property. (Added by Ord. 2004 adopted 3 -1 -94; amended by Ord. 2087 adopted 5- 5-98) 176a (Chapter 9.2 of Article IV added by Ord. 1798 adopted 10- 16 -84) (Arcadia 7 -98) date of such removal, and may be disposed of by the City without liability to any person. 4912.3. EXCEPTION. COMMEMORATIVE ITEMS. Nothing in this Section shall apply to the installa- tion of a metal plaque or plate or individual letters or figures in a sidewalk commemorating an histori- cal, cultural, or artistic event, location orpersonality for which the City Council has granted approval. 4912.4. EXCEPTION. ADDRESSES. Nothing in this Section shall apply to the painting of house numbers upon curbs done under permits issued by the City. 4912.5. EXCEPTION. TEMPORARY DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. The prohibition set forth in Section 4912.1 shall not apply to the placement of temporary directional signs in City parkways and medians for events sponsored by nonprofit organizations, subject to the following requirements: a. A "directional sign" means a sign that does not exceed three (3) feet in height (above street level) that gives locational direction to pedestrians and vehicles. b. "Temporary" means the allowance of such sign on the parkway for no more than two (2) days prior to the scheduled event. All such signs must be removed within twenty-four (24) hours of the event. c. Approval of a temporary sign permit shall be by the City Director of Public Works or his designee. Issuance of the permit is subject to . 4912.2 175 (Arcadia 5 -97) I 1. HIGHLAND HOMEOWNER'S ASSOC. (RESO. 4335,5289, & 5818) All zoned R -1 - No ARB approval required for pool equipment I 2. RANCHO SANTA ANITA PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOC. (RESO.4219 & 5288) All zoned R -0 - No ARB approval required for pool equipment 3. SANTA ANITA OAKS ASSOCIATION (RESO. 5231 & 5290) All zoned R -0 - No ARB approval required for pool equipment 4. RANCHO SANTA ANITA RESIDENT'S ASSOCIATION (RESO.4020 & 5287) All zoned R -0 - No ARB approval required for pool equipment 5. SANTA ANITA VILLAGE ASSOCIATION (RESO.4019 & 5286) All zoned R -1 City of Arcadia ' Single- Family D D n 2 K M Z STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director SUBJECT: Banners in the Public Right -of -Way SUMMARY For many years the City of Arcadia has had a banner program that allows the display of banners in the public right -of -way. This includes both over the street banners and banners hung from individual utility poles. Regarding the banners hung from individual utility poles, some are owned by the City and others owned by the Southern California Edison (SCE) company. Recently staff has experienced an increase in the number of requests for use of locations where banners can be hung. This has resulted in conflicts over scheduling, and raised other issues, which will be discussed in this memorandum. Additionally, the City Council as part of the FY 2000 -2001 budget process appropriated $60,000 for a citywide "wayfinding" and banner program. Implementation of this plan, and the increasing interest for placing banners in the right -of -way, seem to necessitate a review of the issues and possible policy direction on the part of the City Council regarding this matter. BACKGROUND The City has a number of locations where banners can be placed across the right -of- way. These include banners that are hung from utility poles and banners that are across the full street. Provided below is a summary of the different banner arrangements. Over the Street Banners (seven locations) Banners spanning the entire street can be displayed at seven locations in the City. The poles from which they are hung are about 25 -feet high and the banners themselves are about four (4) feet vertical. These banners have been used for many years and can only advertise a community event for a non - profit organization or organizations, whose purpose is public, community oriented, charitable or otherwise consistent with the purpose. For example, they have been used to advertise events such as the Band Review, Derby Day 5K and Showcase House of Design. They seem to be very LASSR IMAGED effective in advertising an event, however the fabrication, installation and removal can be expensive ($800 - $1,000). Downtown Decorative Banners There are 99 double -sided decorative light poles in the downtown on Huntington Drive between Santa Clara and Fifth, and 37 single -sided decorative poles on First Avenue between Wheeler and California. These 136 poles can display 240 banners, which are 18 inches by 48 inches in size. Currently the say "Arcadia Tradition" and are rotated quarterly and designed to match the season (spring, summer, fall, winter). This program is financed by the Redevelopment Agency and the initial investment was about $10,000 for fabrication of the banners. It costs $3,400 per quarter to rotate the banners. Replacements will be needed by 2003. City cobra -head poles There are approximately 150 City owned poles on Huntington, Wheeler, First, Baldwin, Santa Anita, Duarte, Live Oak and Las Tunas that can display 300 banners. Not all of these poles have brackets currently in place; some have flag brackets on top where flags are displayed on certain holidays during the year. This program is administered by the City's Development Services Engineering Division and regulated by City ordinance. Requirements include a permit application and insurance and hold harmless agreement. Southern California Edison (SCE) poles These poles are similar to the City's cobra head poles and are located throughout the city on major arterials. There are no brackets in place on these poles but could be utilized with permission of SCE and the City. Chamber of Commerce Brackets The Arcadia Chamber of Commerce has about thirteen 27 % x 44' poster brackets on posts, most of which are in the medians of various streets. They are displayed lower to the ground than the typical banner that is hung from a utility pole. DISCUSSION The over the street width banner program seems to working well with few problems. Occasionally there are requested dates that are in conflict, in which case a first come - first serve system is used, with priority given to organizations located in the City of Arcadia. No additional regulation seems to be necessary at this time. Recently staff has seen an increase in the number of requests from outside organizations for use of utility poles for the placement of banners. Besides some conflicts in requested dates, staff has identified some issues which we believe merit City Council review and direction. In 1998 the City Council adopted Ordinance 2087 which regulates the placement of signs and banners in the right -of -way on light poles. As part of the process, the City Manager or his designee will review and approve or deny the application. The City E �lirr� Council is informed of that decision and has five (5) working days to appeal the decision of the City Manager. The specific purpose of the banner program as stated in Section 4912.6.1 of the City Code states: "The City may exercise its discretion to consider allowance, on a conditional and limited basis, of signs and banners that involve or commemorate a singular event of a nature that merits special consideration because of its unique character, public interest or other similar factors. Commercial considerations alone will not suffice to meet this criteria ". A number of recent applications have highlighted the fact that there are some areas where the existing ordinance is either silent, or at least open to interpretation, thus requiring City Council direction. Those issues are identified below. Advertising — Sign companies will often sell advertising as a means of financing the cost of banners for organizations that otherwise might not have the resources. The most recent example was the Los Angeles County Fair, which requested a banner permit that would announce the Fair but also include the names of businesses. The permit was denied because the dates had already been approved for the Greek Festival. However, the issue remains as to whether the City should allow banners which display the names of business, and if so, what percent of the banner can be used for that purpose. Non - Profit and For - Profit Organizations — The City Code does not distinguish between non - profit and for - profit organizations for the purpose of displaying banners (note that the across the street banner program only allows non - profit or similar organizations to use this program). Currently Santa Anita Racetrack is the only for - profit organization that has applied for and received a banner permit, for the period of their regular racing season between the end of December and April. While Santa Anita Racetrack is certainly a unique venue, use of the banner program by this for -profit organization may set a precedent for others. There are options the Council could consider regarding this issue, such as allowing only Arcadia businesses to participate, limiting the number and location of banners, and the frequency they can be hung. To date, no other for - profit organization has requested banners. Promoting a Singular Event -The Codes indicates that the banner program is to be used for a singular event of a nature that merits special consideration. The Santa Anita Racetrack banners promote the entire racing season. Most recently Methodist Hospital hung banners which did not relate to any singular event. The most literal reading of the current Code would probably prohibit the Racetrack and Hospital banners. Related to this is the fact that there are no standards for duration of the display or limits on the number of banners installed. CONCLUSION In summary, the issues where City Council direction is sought include the following: 3 • Advertising /business sponsors • Non - profit versus for - profit use of the banners • Promotion of a singular event • Limits on duration of display • Limits on number of banners installed The City Council approved in the FY 2000 -2001 budget funds to develop a citywide directional (Wayfinding) signage and banner program. Therefore, in addition to the above, it will still need to be determined how this program will fit with the existing banner program. Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager ISR . 1- . 5006 WJ—� fr September 5, 2000 On En WORKS U :51/0-30 F .D TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Dir for Pete Bonano, Fire Chief -� Reviewed by: Tracey Hause, Administrative Services Director By: Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO PURCHASE TWO (2) 2000 TYPE III E-450 SUPER DUTY RESCUE AMBULANCES FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM ROAD RESCUE FOR $216,067. SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase contract for two (2) 2000, Type III, E -450, Super Duty Rescue Ambulances, to Road Rescue at a purchase price of $216,067.00. Funds in the amount of $230,000 are budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund for the acquisition of these units. DISCUSSION Due to extensive ambulance uni -body specification requirements, the bid document for the Rescue Ambulance scheduled for purchase in 1999 -2000 was carried over to fiscal year 2000 -2001. The 1999 -2000 Equipment Replacement budget provided for the replacement of one (1) 1990 Ambulance, asset #60078, with 52,496 miles. The current Equipment Replacement budget provides for the replacement of a second Rescue Unit, a 1991 Ambulance, asset #60146 with 74,791 miles. Both units are over 9 years old, are in marginal condition, require frequent service and repair work, and maintenance costs for both vehicles are high and merit replacement. The Purchasing Officer advertised and requested bids from four (4) ambulance manufacturers. The following bids were opened on August 17, 2000: Bidder Location Bid Amount Road Rescue Santa Ana $216,067.00 Leader Industries So. El Monte No Bid Mayor and City Council *Wol September 5, 2000 Page 2 Last May, the City completed a competitive bid process for the purchase of one (1) ambulance. Four (4) bids were requested, and only two (2) responded. Due to discrepancies in the bids submitted by the two (2) bidders, the City elected to revise the specifications and rebid the unit. Because a second ambulance is included in this year's Equipment Replacement Budget, it was also added to the bid package. Bids received as part of this bid process for 2000 year models are $1,500 higher per unit than the low bid submitted last May. Should the City elect to rebid these units again, staff anticipates that the manufacturers will submit bids for 2001 model ambulances, which should come in at a higher cost. Based on this information, staff is recommending that the City Council award a contract for the purchase of two (2) 2000 ambulances to Road Rescue for $216,067. FISCAL IMPACT Funds in the amount of $230,000 have been budgeted in the Equipment Replacement Fund from the 1999 -2000 and 2000 -2001 fiscal year for the acquisition of these units. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Award a contract for the purchase of two (2) 2000 Type III E-460 Super Duty Rescue Ambulances to Road Rescue for $216,067. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. PM:DM:dw Approved: --n1 William R. Kelly, City Manager ;—'k �4w *Aso NOTICE TO BIDDERS PURCHASE OF RESCUE AMBULANCE BID NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Arcadia, California is accepting bids to Furnish and Deliver two (2) Rescue Ambulances. Bids shall be submitted in a sealed enveloped marked "Bid for Rescue Ambulances" and will be accepted at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, P.O. Box 60021, Arcadia, California 91066 -6021. Bids will be accepted no later than 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 17, 2000 at which time said bids shall be publicly opened. Copies of the bid documents may be obtained in the Purchasing Office of the City of Arcadia, 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California 91007. Said specifications and bid forms are hereby referred to and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference and all bids must strictly comply therewith. The City reserves the right to accept any bid in whole or in part, or to reject any or all bids and to waive any informalities or irregularities in the bids or in the bidding process, and all bids are binding for a period of ninety (90) days after the bid opening and may be retained by the City for examination and comparison, as specified in the quotation request documents. The award of this contract shall be made by the Arcadia City Council. Dated: July 26, 2000 Publish: Augusta, 2000 CITY OF ARCADIA PURCHASING OFFICE J vu /ci ea 17:11-;L, , O�rORAT950�1 STAFF REPORT September 5, 2000 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct�'"� Kent Ross, City Librarian )KI SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES FOR AN OPERATIONS EVALUATION, SERVICE ASSESSMENT AND RESOURCE UTILIZATION STUDY FOR THE ACRADIA PUBLIC LIBRARY SUMMARY: The Arcadia Public Library Board of Trustees expressed a desire to have the Library operations evaluated to insure the most effective use of its limited resources. Specific areas of interest are staffing requirements, organization, and service delivery. Request for proposals were mailed to a number of consultanting firms that have experience in this area. On June 29, 2000, three proposals were received for consideration. The Administrative Services Director, City Librarian, and Human Resources and Risk Manager screened the proposals and came to a consensus that Cooperative Personnel Services could provide the services requested. A recommendation was formally made to the Library Board at their regularly scheduled meeting on July 20, 2000. The Library Board's primary concern with the proposal was that there was not a technology review as part of the scope of work requested. At the time of the preparation of the request for proposal, staff was not aware of the Board's interest in that area. To address the Board's concern, Boardmembers Selmer and Ulrich and City staff conducted a conference telephone call with Cooperative Personnel Services and requested a technology review and report as part of the project. Cooperative Personnel Services agreed to perform the additional work for a reasonable cost, addressing the concern raised by the Library Board. DISCUSSION: As indicated, the Arcadia Public Library Broad of Trustees expressed a desire to have the library operations evaluated to insure the most effective use of its limited resources. The purpose of this project is to ensure that the City of Arcadia is providing efficient and LASER IMAGED effect Library Services to the community. Scope of services requested in the review of the Library operations included: Evaluation of current services and their delivery. Analysis of organization structure and staffing (level of expertise and workload) to evaluate the effective use of resources. Evaluation of volunteer program with recommendations for its scope and management. Conduct a community input session (including representation from Arcadia Unified School District) regarding expanded or limited hours of operation and make recommendations on this subject including staffing and budgetary implications of any recommended change. Provide written report and recommendation with implementation strategies. Request for proposals were mailed to a number of consulting firms in May, 2000. Three proposals were received by the proposal deadline on June 29, 2000. The Administrative Services Director, City Librarian, and Human Resources and Risk Manager reviewed the proposals and agreed that all three proposals met the selection criteria and could complete the project as requested. The following costs were proposed respectively: Firm Cost Cooperative Personnel Services $ 29,335 Personnel Concepts, Inc $ 49,000 Vitetta $ 47,880 A consensus was reached by staff that Personnel Concepts, Inc. would be recommended to the Library Board as the successful firm to complete the operations evaluation. During their regularly scheduled meeting on July 20, 2000, the Board considered the recommendation and expressed a concern that the scope of work did not include a technology review and report. Staff responded that a City -wide Information Master Plan would be complete during the 2000 -2001 FY and a review of the Library's technology needs would be included in that study. However, concerns still remained and as a result, a sub- committee was appointed to address this issue. A conference call was coordinated and Boardmembers Selmer and Ulrich, the City Librarian and the Administrative Services Director spoke to the key staff who is to complete the study. Cooperative Personnel Services agreed to propose a project Pa . • 141W *40 addendum that would review and report the current level of technology utilized by the Library and research what other cutting edge systems are being utilized by other distinctive libraries in California. The report would also include the staffing needs that would be necessitated by changing technology and also the kinds of training that would be required by staff. The cost for the additional scope of work is $ 3,750. Due to the fact the additional amount proposed for the addendum was not unreasonable, was specific to the Library's information technology, and the issue was a primary concern of the Library Board, it was concluded the technology review and report should be included in the study. Since the additional amount, when added to the original proposed costs, still was significantly lower that the other firm's proposed costs, the sub- committee agreed that the Cooperative Personnel Services remained the lowest and most responsible bidder. References provided by Cooperative Personnel Services were verified and staff feels that there is the necessary expertise to complete the project as proposed. The work is to begin in September and the project is anticipated to be complete in December. FISCAL IMPACT: The 2000 -2001 FY Budget included an appropriation of $30,000 to complete the assessment and resource utilization study for the Arcadia Public Library. As indicated, the total amount that is proposed by Cooperative Personnel Services to complete the project, including the technology review is $33,085. It is recommended the City Council appropriate an additional $ 3,085 from General Fund Reserves to complete this project. RECOMMENATION: It is recommended that the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services for an operations evaluation, service assessment and resource utilization study for the Arcadia Public Library; and Appropriate $ 3,085 from General Fund Reserves to fund the project addendum for the technology review and report. Approved: u m William R. Kelly, City Manager F1 City of Arcadia Arcadia Public Library Proposal for Evaluation of Library operations Rine 29, 2000 COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 191 LATHROP WAY, SUITE A SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 �♦�, (916) 263 -3600 (916) 263 -3613 (fax) www.cps.ca.gov (web page) info@cps.ca.gov (e -mail) A WIN =, a CM INTRODUCTION En Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) is pleased to offer our human resources and organizational expertise in response to the City of Arcadia Public Library's (Library) request for an evaluation of the Library's operations, with special regard to service delivery relative to library commitments, operations and resource allocation. The purpose of the study is to insure the most effective use of Library resources. This proposal is in response to a request from the Arcadia Public Library Board of Trustees. Over proposal focuses on three key elements: • Professional and personalized products tailored to meet the Library Board's specific request • Open communication with client and employees • Extensive professional expertise acquired by scores of similar studies provided to public agencies The proposal costing and time frames contain detailed information on project methodology. CPS is very flexible and welcomes the opportunity to work with the Arcadia Public Library Board of Trustees to develop a pricing approach which specifically meets the needs of the Library. Ln SCOPE OF WORK The scope of the services required include six steps: 1. Evaluation of current services and their delivery M This step of the project is principally a process of data collection and analysis. The evaluation of current services and their delivery will be used as a baseline against which to determine potential improvements as well as a baseline against which to measure the impact of those changes. CPS will review the necessary background materials such as annual reports, the staffing study and other pertinent background documentation. CPS proposes that data be collected from several sources in order to develop a comprehensive portrayal of people's perceptions of current services: (1) from interviews held with library staff, including regular and part -time staff as well as with the volunteer staff; (2) from interviews held with a stratified sample of clients (i.e., representation of the public, client school systems, and other clients. The purpose of these meetings is to develop insights into employees' and clients' perception of the adequacies and inadequacies of current services and their delivery. From these insights, a questionnaire will be constructed to quantify these perceptions. Thus, this step of the project will include questionnaire development, data collection with the questionnaire, and a statistical analysis of the results. This analysis will conform to the principles of professional data analysis including identification and elimination of outliers, clarification of ambiguous responses, and a calculation of the reliability of the measurement (i.e., determining the amount of measurement error inherent in the data collection process). The time required for each of these facets of step l are presented in Table I . Table 1. Time Requirements for the Major Tasks of Step I Task Time Requirement (hrs) Study session with Library Board 16 Meeting with staff and volunteers 10 Meeting with clients 10 Development, administration, and analysis of questionnaire 15 Total Hours for Step 1 51 2. Analysis of organization structure, procedures, and staffing (levels of expertise and workload) to evaluate the effective use of resources As with Step 1, Step 2 largely focuses on data collection and the analysis of data. M en Table 2. Time Requirements of the Major Tasks of Step 2. Task Time Requirement (hrs) Study work flow (policies, procedures 20 and practices) based on interviews with 13 staff. Review what need to happen: 33 Mandatory and optional levels of user services, reporting and tracking requirements & methods, information sharing and supervisory practices, etc. 25 Analysis of data. 25 Total Hours for Step 2 50 3. Evaluation of volunteer program with recommendations for its scope and management CPS suggests a meeting with volunteers. Unlike the volunteer meeting referenced in Step 1, in Step 3, the focus is on the volunteer program rather than on the quality and delivery of services. The focus here is on the recruitment, selection, training, and supervision of volunteers, the most efficient use of their capabilities, their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with various aspects of their library assignments. The purpose is to develop a questionnaire in order to quantify the volunteers' attitudes and perceptions regarding the program. The collection of data should require one meeting. The time requirements are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Time Requirements of the Major Tasks of Step 3 Task Time Requirement (hrs) Meeting with volunteers 20 Development, administration, and analysis of questionnaire 13 Total Hours for Step 3 33 4. Conduct a community input session (including representation from Arcadia Unified School District) regarding expanded or limited hours of operation and make recommendations. Providing this opportunity with teambuilding input can help assure that the program review in and of itself can make a positive difference in the Library. Table 4. Time Requirements of the Major Tasks of Step 4 Task Time Requirement (hrs) Community input session 20 Total Hours for Step 4 20 3 S. Provide preliminary report of findings and recommendations to the City of Arcadia Library Board of Trtcstees for final review This second library study session to review and have in -depth discussion of options and recommendations based on trustee perceptions and our data will be where the "real work" relative to impact gets done. Therefore we are proposing two closely scheduled — even back to back, half day/ four hour time blocks to conduct this study session. The use of a study session to talk candidly about the study is critical to the success of this effort. A forum is required where the consultant and library officials can voice concerns in response to the preliminary draft of the consultant's report. The presence of candor is of value in discussing the findings, the implications of findings, and the feasibility of organizational changes suggested by the consultant. Misunderstandings, clarifications of points, and questions can be raised and dealt with to finalize the change that is deemed most desirable and effective in improving operations of the Arcadia Public Library, Table 5. Time Requirements of the Major Tasks of Steo 5 Task Time Requirement (hrs) Consultant works with network of 30 experts and /or panel to obtain additional expertise. Consultant prepares report of data, 100 analysis and proposed recommendations Total Hours for Ste 5 130 6. Present final report to Arcadia City Council The united consensus of Board and consultant is presented to the City Council, accounting for the resources expended on the project. Herein is the forum for the consultant to explain and clarify the report contents with special attention to recommendations and their implementation, and to answer questions regarding the many issues with which the consultant, the library officials, and Board members have discussed as well as items which may require Council action or approval. 4 M Table 6. Time Requirements of the Major Tasks of Step 6 Task Time Requirement (hrs) Pre & post discussion with individual council members 12 Presentation of final report g Total Hours for Ste p_6 20 An additional step of Program Evaluation might be undertaken 6 -12 months after the conclusion of the initial study. This is mentioned here as an option only, which would require additional expenditure. 7. Program Evaluation As an optional step, the City of Arcadia may wish to evaluate the success of the organizational change recommendations adopted for implementation by the library. That is, the Board may wish to answer the questions "Have the changes we introduced to improve the services and delivery of those services, coupled with the efforts to maximize the utilization of Our resources, been successful? To what extent did our efforts work ?" This step involves administering a questionnaire (developed from the questionnaires used in Steps 1 through 3) to the various clients of the library six to 12 months after the changes are introduced. Comparing the responses of this second measure with the responses on the first questionnaire serves as a measure of the extent to which our implementations had the desired and intended effects. Appropriate methods of program evaluation and quasi- experimental design as presented by Posavic and Carey (1985)1 and Cook and Campbell (1979)' will be utilized to evaluate the success of the program. Prom-am EValuation. 2`1 Edition. Emil J. Posavic & Raymond G. Carey, 1935. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clirfs. New Jersey ' Quasi - Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings, 2id Edition. Thomas D. Cook & Donald T. Campbell, 1979. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston 5 u PROJECT TEAM M CPS proposes to assign two consultants to your project. The Project Manager will be Dr. Peggy Newgarden. Dr. Newgarden has over 25 of experience in organizational behavior and human. resource management, including consensus building, meeting facilitation, team building, strategic planning, training, performance management and conflict management.. Her experience includes instruction on the university level, program development, staff and project management. She has performed organizational development and management consulting services for utilities, state and municipal government agencies, educational institutions, and private corporations. Dr. Newgarden holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Recreation Education from the State University of New York, Cortland, and a Ph.D. in Public Administration from the University of Southern California, specializing in bureaucratic dynamics, organization design, behavior in organizations, comparative administration and human resource management. Dr. Newgarden is especially qualified to manage this project because of her extensive experience working with library systems and personnel. References: Kathyrn Rogers, Deputy Department Head — Human Resources, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Regina Minudri (retired — Head librarian San Francisco Public Library and past President, American Library Association. Cynthia Papermaster, Law Librarian — Gibson, Dunn & Crucher, San Francisco (415- 393 - 824s) Carol Starr, Head Librarian — Marin County Assisting Dr. Newgarden on the consultant team will be Dr. Richard Sheppard. Dr. Sheppard has worked as an industrial psychologist for over sixteen years and has taught graduate classes in industrial psychology, measurement and statistics. He served as Principal Researcher with the Michigan Consortium of Small Businesses for Personnel Research, Inc. In this capacity, he designed and conducted over 150 job analyses and designed validation studies to support the use of tests developed from these analyses. He also authored four complete affirmative action plans for private industry. Additionally, Dr. Sheppard has developed, administered, and analyzed approximately one dozen organizational surveys /questionnaires. One study specifically researched the knowledge, skills, ability, and personality attributes required for successful Librarian I's and U's and Supervising Librarians for a large California city. Dr. Sheppard received his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees from Central Michigan University. In addition, CPS also has a large team of human resource professionals, who have a combined diversity of expertise which will be available at any time as a resource to the assigned consultants, if it should be required. In essence this means that our entire 05 M organization and team of experts is available as a resource to the Arcadia Public Library at no additional cost. Due to the long lead times between proposal preparation and actual start of work, we reserve the right to make staff substitutions, if necessary, up to and until the beginning of the project. We will make every attempt to provide the personnel proposed. However, if a substitution is necessary, we will provide a consultant with equal or greater qualifications. Once the project begins, CPS will only substitute staff with your approval. 7 M M RECENT SIMILAR PROJECTS /REFERENCES Work Performed Organization Contact Classification, Organizational and Sacramento Public Library Donna L. Giles Salary Studies; Investigation Director of Human Resources Services (916) 264 -2997 Job Analysis for City Library City of San Jose Rumi Portillo, Mgr. System Employment Services (408) 277 -2512 Public Service Staffing Project City of Houston, Library Candy Aldrich, Director Department (7 13) 837 -9333 Viveca Songberg, Manager (713) 873 -9320 Organizational Analysis City of Los Angeles, Dr Bennett Monye, Training Officer Personnel Department (213) 847 -9204 Janeth Smith, Division Chief (213) 847 -9760 Organizational Study, Butte County, Department of Patricia Crager, Director Compensation/Classification, 400 Social Services (530) 538 -6707 Positions, Transition/ Implementation Review and consultation on San Diego County Romulo Sarno, Jr., recruitment and selection, Acting Director Compliance review of personnel Dept. Of Human Resources rules and practices (619) 531 -5100 Organization Restructuring Sacramento Municipal Utility Jan Schori District General Manager (916) 732 -6160 Program Review Lawrence Livermore Dennis Fisher, Assistant Deputy Lahwide Training Program Laboratory Director Review Jim Wells, Training Manager (925) 422 -1100 Program Development and Educational Participation in Coleen James Dailey Direction Communities (EPIC) (909) 243 -50.15 Program Review - Marketing Indus Corporation Mary Mullins Operations (330) 674 -9969 M PROPOSED WORK PLAN CM To achieve the objectives of this project for the Arcadia Public Library, CPS staff will perform the following activities: CPS Activities • Conduct study session with Library Board to identify project expectations and gather and develop information needed to conduct the project. Engage in appropriate follow -up and coordination with the Board Liaison during remaining review process; • Analyze the data collected to assess the current organization deliverables, policies, procedures and practices to determine recommendations and implementation strategies for more optimal organization operations; • Meet in public forum to receive community input regarding expanded or limited hours of operation; • Develop preliminary report delineating findings and recommendations; present to Library Board of Trustees; • Develop and present the final report for Library Board of Trustees and City Council. Arcadia Public Library Review Any work products developed during the activities described above will be submitted to the project representative(s) for review, comment, and/or approval. This is a step that is critical to ensuring accurate, reliable, and valid products. We recommend that the appropriate management and /or supervisory staff be heavily involved in this phase. Arcadia Public Library Responsibilities Successful completion of this project within the time specified depends largely upon the cooperation between the Library and CPS project staff. For this reason, we request that a project representative be designated to coordinate communication, meetings, interview schedules and review of products with the consultants. The Library's project representative will be responsible for the following activities: 1. Coordination of all meeting schedules, conference calls, computer communications (software and technology), facilities and equipment needs; 2. Coordination of interview schedules and facilities and distribution of project update information; 3. Ongoing communication with CPS Project Manager as necessary. Reports and Recommendations CPS will provide all reports and recommendations, verbal or written, to the project representative(s) for confidential use and /or implementation by the Arcadia Public Library. Written reports or other project deliverables will first be submitted in draft form for review and discussion; then the final report. Informal communication will be ongoing throughout the project, and CPS staff will be available to answer questions, make recommendations on process and outcomes, and to provide assistance on project related matters. 10 M cm PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE We expect to complete the project in the required 90 days. The timeline below represents target dates for the major phases of the project. In general, project activities will follow this timeline. PROJECT SCHEDULE Milestone Month Meet with Library Board on overall scope of project, develop strategy, and collect all documentation. 9/2000 Meet with staff, volunteers; meet with clients. 9/2000 Develop and administer questionnaire. 9- 10/2000 Analysis of data. 10 /2000 Study work flow based on interviews with staff; analyze job analysis data. 10/2000 Meet with volunteers. 9/2000 Develop and administer questionnaire. 9- 10/2000 Analysis of questionnaire. 10/2000 Conduct community input session. 9/2000 Provide preliminary report of findings and recommendations to City of Arcadia Library Board of Trustees for final review. Mid- 11/2000 Present final report to Arcadia City Council. Mid- 11/2000 Optional Step (at additional cost) Milestone Time Program evaluation. 6-12 months after completion Of study PROJECT BUDGET J Please see enclosed project budget, submitted separately in a sealed envelope. 12 City of Arcadia Arcadia Public Library Addendum to Proposal for Evaluation of Library Operations WPA 01 rA wk.�,FS August 10, 2000 COOPERATIVE PERSONNEL SERVICES 191 LATHROP WAY, SUITE A SACRAMENTO, CA 95815 (916) 263 -3600 (916) 263 -3613 (fax) www.cps.ca.gov (web page) info @cps.c,t.gov (e -mail) 0n PROJECT ADDENDUM r5 TECHNOLOGY REVIEW AND REPORT The Consultant, Brent Rowett, would look at the current level of technology utilized by the Library and research what other cutting -edge systems are being utilized by other distinctive libraries in California and around the nation. He will report on the staffing needs that would be necessitated by changing technology and also the kinds of training that would be required for staff. Information Technology Review Projected Costs Expenditure Category Total Estimated Expense Consultant Time (Approximately 25 hours @ $90 per hour) $2,250 Travel Time (Approximately 10 hours @ $45 per hour) $450 Airline costs 300 Hotel 200 Meals (at $46 Per Diem) 250 Rental car 300 Total Estimated Costs $3,750 n Profile: BRENT ROWETT. M Mr. Rowett has 29 years of experience in Information Technology, working in both technical and management positions. His major areas of expertise include development and implementation of strategic plans, operating plans, and budgets for large IT organizations; studies and recommendations of IT personnel classification, training, and compensation needs; development and management of IT project plans; and management and coordination of the Year 2000 project at Sacramento County. Mr. Rowett is currently working as a consultant with Cooperative Personnel Services. Work History: • Deputy Director of Information Technology Services, County of Sacramento • Various Information Technology positions, County of Sacramento Professional Experience: Deputy Director of Information Technology Services County of Sacramento. Responsibilities included planning, budgeting, and project control for a staff of approximately 60 full -time employees and 40 contract employees. Education: • Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering, University of Utah Professional Certifications: • Total Quality Management Certificate, American River College 2 ! �) -;1 �trer`�i ;sjrarYt TOO STAFF REPORT OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER DATE: September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William R. Kelly, City Manager Jerome J. Collins, Direc or o Recreation and Community Services SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT NEW YOUTH PROGRAMS USING $75,000.00 OF THE (NEW) $125,000.00 BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR FY2000 -2001 SUMMARY In the Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 City Budget, the City Council included an allocation of $125,00.00 to enhance recreation and leisure programs for Arcadia youth. The Recreation Commission, along with City staff, reviewed alternatives for putting this money to good use and they recommend that the City Council direct staff to implement the programs referenced in this report, all of which are directed to middle school aged youngsters. DISCUSSION In reviewing possible additions to the youth recreation program, the Recreation Commission and staff looked for things that would provide youngsters with fun, supervised activities and also give them the opportunity to participate in collaborative special events that promote positive interaction and socialization with their peers. Accordingly, the following programs (for middle school youth) are recommended for implementation on a trial basis: • Fall Flag Football League • Fall Volleyball League • Winter Basketball League • Spring Track League • Spring Softball League • Skate -A- Bration Special Event • Teen Jam 2000 (excursion) • Vacation Activity Center • Celebrity Basketball /Softball Jam (excursion) • Dances • New Field Trips LASER. 11,111A B %1W V40 Mayor and City Council — New Youth Programs September 5, 2000 Page 2 The estimated cost for these programs, based on maximum attendance and participation in San Gabriel Valley Municipal Athletic Association and Southern California Municipal Athletic Association events, is $75,000.00. At the end of this fiscal year, each of these programs will be evaluated. Programs that were successful will be recommended for continuation and inclusion in the fiscal year 2001 -2002 budget. (On a practical note, it is worth reiterating that we are approaching these new projects as trial efforts that will hopefully be successful. As such, even though their may be some public expectation that these activities are now available on a permanent basis, in reality the continued inclusion of these projects in the budget is contingent upon their success and future budget allocations approved by the City Council.) On a related issue, in addition to the $125,000.00 allocation to expand youth programs, the City Council also approved an expenditure of $10,000.00 to update the Youth Master Plan. This project is currently underway. Upon completion, the remaining $50,000.00 of the $125,000.00 will be available for programs and projects that come out of the updated Plan. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the budget to begin these programs immediately. The $75,000.00 is an estimate of what the above referenced programs will cost. The remaining money (of the $125,000.00 allocation) will be retained for use on programs arising out of the Youth Master Plan Update. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Recreation and Community Services Department to implement the new youth programs referenced in this report using $75,000.00 of the (new) $125,000.00 budget allocation for Fiscal Year 2000 -2001. STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direc SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROGESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROVIDED BY KNIGHT COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY: As a result of a material change in the organization of the Administrative Services Department that resulted in the elimination of the Information Systems Division, it is necessary to contract for services to provide information system coordination, equipment diagnostics and maintenance services. Due to the importance of maintaining the system on a day to day basis and to ensure the accuracy of the data and programs, it is imperative that qualified individuals consistently monitor the system. Knight Communications has been providing these services for the City since the Information Systems Division was eliminated in August. Knight's performance during the last 4 weeks has been excellent, and to ensure consistency in the management of the system, it is recommended we continue on a contract basis with Knight Communications for management services through June 30, 2001. DISCUSSION: In order to provide effective and efficient management information system services to all City Departments with the exception of the Police and Fire, it was necessary the City of Arcadia contract for the services. To ensure that the computer system was not compromised during the transition to contract services, Knight Communications provided immediate on -site support. For the last four weeks, Knight has provided a qualified Systems Coordinator to administer the functions of the Division. LASER WAGED With assistance from other technical support staff, who are employees of Knight Communications, the following functions have been provided and will continue to be provided on an on -going basis as proposed: Management of the City's entire network infrastructure, including all hardware and software with proper diagnostics, support and resolutions. Protection of the information systems infrastructure and availability of technical solutions for the City on a continued basis. Working closely with third party hardware /software vendors in the resolution of problems associated with their hardware and software. Evaluation and recommendations regarding software /hardware purchases, identification of costs and recommendations for supplies and services as needed. Working closely with select City staff indentifying and establishing long -term goals and objectives. The level of service proposed is on -site during regular business hours, scheduled for year around. All personnel on Knight Communications are on call 24 hours a day and remote dial -in support services are also available 24 hours if needed. Knight Communications comes highly recommended for performing the same functions in the Cities of Monterey Park and Montebello. Due to their excellent references, competent performance thus far, and the fact that a lack of consistency in the management of the system could result if they were not to continue on a contract basis, it is proposed the City enter into an agreement for services through June 30, 2001. Staff will re- evaluate the services next spring and determine at that time if it is in the best interest of the City to continue contracting for services with Knight Communications. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of providing the system management services as described is $10,000.00 per month. Sufficient funds are available in the Administrative Services Department Budget for the 2000 -2001 FY. RECOMMENDATTION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement for management information services provided by Knight Communications. Approved By: _ UMA William R. Kelly, City Manager 7 r� 9'�•�� STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director By: Michael Busch, Transportation Services Officer SUBJECT: Recommendation to appropriate $17,000 of Proposition A Local Return Funds for recreational transit excursions in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. Summary As an eligible expense of Proposition A Local Return funds, staff is requesting the City Council to appropriate $17,000 of Proposition A Local Return funds for recreational transit excursions. All recreational excursions, as listed on Attachment 1, are open to the general public within the specified age group (i.e., youth or seniors) and may be attended by those individuals residing within the City. Further, staff has determined that its fiscal impact will be minimal as the City's balance of Proposition A Local Return funds is more than adequate to finance this expense. Discussion Proposition A is a countywide' /2 cent sales tax dedicated for transportation services. Twenty five percent of all Proposition A revenues received are set aside by the MTA for allocation to local municipalities and the County as part of the local return program for eligible uses such as recreational transit excursions. Each year, the MTA approves an appropriation of Proposition A Local Return revenues to the City. For FY 00 -01, the City's allocation of Proposition A Local Return revenues is $650,427. To encourage additional participation in recreational excursions as well as to leverage General Fund monies, Proposition A Local Return funds are being requested. The City Recreation Department is sponsoring these excursions. LASER IMAGED M Recreational Transit Excursions September 5, 2000 Page 2 Staff has received approval by the MTA to expend Proposition A Local Return funds in the amount of $17,000 for recreational transit excursions as listed on Attachment 1. These excursions are open to the general public within the specified age groups. Fiscal Impact The City will receive $650,427 in Proposition A Local Return funds for FY 00 -01. Through the FY 00 -01 budget process, $794,450 of Proposition A Local Return funds have been appropriated by the City to eligible projects such as Arcadia Transit, Bus Stop Improvement Program and capital purchases. In addition, the City has a carryover balance of roughly $1.6 million of Proposition A Local Return funds from prior years. There are funds available in the Proposition A program to fund this request. RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $17,000 OF PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUNDS FOR RECREATIONAL TRANSIT EXCURSIONS IN LOS ANGELES AND ORANGE COUNTIES. Approved B wr'IA pp : Y William R. Kelly, City Manager E Recreational Transit Excursions Youth Excursions Attachment 1 Destination Program Description Group Description Bus Provider * Total Cost (age /geographics) of Transportation Ice Skating Summer Recreation 7 yrs. and up Arcadia Unified $308.00 Pasadena Excursions School District Raging Waters Summer Recreation 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $386.00 San Dimas Excursions unless accomp. by adult School District Golf N Stuff Summer Recreation 7 yrs. and up Arcadia Unified $430.00 Norwalk Excursions School District Knott's Summer Recreation 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $650.00 Buena Park Excursions unless accomp. by adult School District Universal Studios Summer Recreation 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $696.00 Universal City Excursions unless accomp. by adult School District Magic Mountain Summer Recreation 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $760.00 Valencia Excursions unless accom . by adult School District Laser Tag Summer Recreation 7 yrs. and up Arcadia Unified $227.00 Alhambra Excursions School District Laguna Arts Summer Recreation 18 yrs and up Gold Coast Tours $500.00 Festival, Laguna Excursions Raging Waters Summer Recreation 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $386.00 San Dimas Excursions unless accomp. by adult School District Day Camp Buses Day Camp 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $7,680 Sports Camp Sports Camp 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $1,250 Ice Skating Winter Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $154.00 Pasadena unless accomp by adult School District Ice Skating Spring Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $154.00 Pasadena unless accomp. by adult School District Knott's Winter Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $325.00 Buena Park unless accomp. by adult School District Knott's Spring Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $325.00 Buena Paris unless accomp. by adult School District Laser Tag Winter Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified $113.50 Alhambra School District Laser Tag Spring Excursion 7 yrs and up Arcadia Unified I $113.50 Alhambra School District Day Camp buses (M$120 /bus /day x 32 days r ozar ;:0a,46a Recreational Transit Excursions Senior Excursions Attachment 1 Finkbiner Park Annual Picnic for SGV 50 yrs and up Cal Charter $320.00 Glendora Senior Centers Hollywood Bowl Live Orchestra 50 yrs and up Cal Charter $320.00 Hollywood Concert Pasadena Night on the Town 50 yrs and up Cal Charter $320.00 Dinner and movie Los Angeles J. Paul Getty 50 yrs and up Cal Charter $320.00 Museum Cirtus College Christmas Is, Live 50 yrs and up Cal Charter $320.00 Glendora Stage performance * Based on FY 99 -00 cost estimates. E Grand Total: $16,058 STAFF REPORT � �RtpR/.T1�• .ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tracey L. Hause, Administrative Services Direct@ SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6185 FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECESSARY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000 —2001 TO PAY THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS OF THE CITY LIGHTING & PARKING DISTRICTS. SUMMARY The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 [Division 14 of the California Streets and Highway Code Section 18,000 et Seq.] to establish Lighting Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts consist of five (5) districts (Exhibit "A "). These districts were formed to provide a source of revenue for the cost of power, maintenance and other capital improvements within the respective districts. The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining costs collected from the property owner from funds derived from a tax applied to land values. The City also formed two (2) Parking Districts in the downtown area (Exhibit "B "), in accordance with the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. Funding for the maintenance of these districts is derived in part from property assessments and in part from contributions from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. DISCUSSION Each year a resolution is adopted fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the authorized maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting and Parking Districts. This information is the basis for establishing tax rates, which are forwarded to Los Angeles County and applied to properties in specific districts. A separate schedule (Exhibit "C ") is attached to provide expanded detail of assessed valuations, beginning balances, estimated expenditures and the proposed tax rate for fiscal year 2000 -2001 for the districts identified. LASER 11; CO-2t. , Attached is a report from the Public Works Services Department which identifies the annual operating costs within the lighting zones. Also attached is the Staff Report from the Development Services Department, approved by the Parking District Commission on June 8, 2000, fixing the amount to be raised from tax assessment to maintain the City's two (2) Parking Districts. These reports and the identified costs serve as the basis for establishing the proposed rates. FISCAL IMPACT The rates established for Fiscal Year 2000 -2001 will recover the costs eligible for reimbursement within the established districts. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6185 fixing the amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes necessary for the fiscal year 2000 -2001 to pay the authorized maintenance and operation costs of the City Lighting and Parking Districts. Attachment: Resolution No. 6185 APPROVED: u L6A TLH:mlp .. I .. r William R. Kelly, City Manager ARCADIA A L- F^ R N 3 to EXHIBIT 'W' P4,- RT P. ii City of Arcadia x H LV H H Exhibit "C" LIGHTING DISTRICTS (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help insure districts maintain a positive balance. (2) Where major capital costs are planned or have been completed, the proposed tax capitalizes such costs over a fixed period of years. (3) For comparison, last year's rate were as follows: Zone A - .009124 B-.007719 C - .117511 D-.028849 E - .034277 VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICTS Balance 2000 -01 Estimated Estimated % Parking Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates District 7 -01 -00 Valuations Revenues Expenditures (2) 2000 -01 (3) Zone A 13,123 165,241,412 13,611 22,278 .008237 Zone B 28,345 853,993,093 60,873 74,351 .007128 Zone C (131,022) 177,913,841 209,060 65,032 .117506 Zone D 19,454 217,603,266 5,246 20,583 .002411 Zone E ( 1,081) 189,220,459 50,304 41,019 .026585 (1) An allowance for delinquent taxes is included, where appropriate, in tax rates to help insure districts maintain a positive balance. (2) Where major capital costs are planned or have been completed, the proposed tax capitalizes such costs over a fixed period of years. (3) For comparison, last year's rate were as follows: Zone A - .009124 B-.007719 C - .117511 D-.028849 E - .034277 VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICTS *The Parking Districts are within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. Total assessed value includes base year assessed value and incremental increases since 1974. * *Estimated Tax Revenues are based on 1974 base year assessment values. Balance 2000 -01 Estimated Estimated % Parking Available Assessed Tax Operating /Capital Tax Rates District 7 -01 -00 Valuations* Revenues ** Expenditures 2000 -01 No.1 69,072 8,768,334 880 8,830 .100000 No. 2 119,444 21,007,245 2,057 15,240 .100000 *The Parking Districts are within the Redevelopment Agency Project Area. Total assessed value includes base year assessed value and incremental increases since 1974. * *Estimated Tax Revenues are based on 1974 base year assessment values. • _ v8ao-cam j e emu.s .0 4/l f'ssff Forums MEMORANDUM Office of the City Attorney Date: September 5, 2000 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL s ►— • FROM: STEPHEN P. DEITSCH CITY ATTORNEY , /9, ( i PAT MALLOY, PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIREC'�k SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2131 AMENDING ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 2 PART 3 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SWEEPING SIDEWALK REFUSE INTO STREETS BACKGROUND Since the first of the year, staff has been working with the City Attorney's office on National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") issues. During a review of the Arcadia Municipal Code, it was discovered that the current Code prohibits persons from sweeping dirt, rubbish or refuse from any sidewalk into the street between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., which then allows sweeping of dirt rubbish or refuse into the street, between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This provision does not meet with NPDES Best Management Practices and needs to be revised. DISCUSSION All efforts should be made to keep the City's curbs and gutters free and clear of any debris that may otherwise enter into the City's storm drain system and ultimately end up being deposited into public waterways. Therefore, staff is recommending that a Code amendment be approved which would provide that no person having charge or control of any lot, building or premises shall clean or sweep any dirt, rubbish, or refuse from any sidewalk into the street. 1 LASER IMAGED c. 1.9 . �1.Q. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council introduce Ordinance No. 2131 amending Article VII, Chapter 2, Part 3 of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to Sweeping Sidewalk Refuse into Streets. CONCUR: titn PA( William R. Kelly City Manager Attachment: Ordinance No. 2131 2 . c2� i : - / � %") y _. r AItC1lU Rp OR 10 STAFF REPORT OAYBfl DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 20.00 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Pe an, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director fry Donna Butler, Community Development AdministratoGx�o� SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT G.P. 99-001, ZONE CHANGE Z-99-003 AND TEXT AMENDMENT T.A. 99-006 FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — SANTA ANITA EXPANSION SUMMARY In June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted applications for a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003) and Text Amendment (T.A. 99-006) to allow the construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion to the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita. On the basis of the initial study prepared by staff, it was determined than an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary and was prepared. in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 25 reviewed the Final EIR as well as the specific applications. On August 8, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 with one member absent to adopt Resolutions 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616 and 1617 relating to the Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment . The City Council is the final decision making body for purposes of certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approving the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment The staff report has been divided into the following sections: LASER IMAGED • Page No. Section 1 Project Description (including Land Use Map and 3 Site Plan • -Section 2 Environmental Impact Analysis and Final EIR 11 Table 1-1 17 Section 3 Mitigation Monitoring Program 29 L- Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program 30 - Section 4 Applications G.P. 99-001, Z.C. 99-003 and T.A. 52 99-006 including Staff and Planning Commission Recommendations ---i Section 5 City Council Public Hearing Process and Motions 66 Section 6 Map Illustrating proposed zoning/design overlay ,__ Section 7 City Council Resolution 6197 — Certifying the EIR 69 --, Section 8 City Council Resolution 6198 Approving the 113 General Plan Amendment Section 9 Resolution 4185 adopted in 1971 117 I- Section 10 Draft CC Resolution rescinding 4185 125 Section 11 Planning Commission Resolutions 1613 132 f_ 1614 137 <__ 1615 140 1616 144 1617 147. Section 12 Planning.Commission Minutes July 25, 2000 159 p August 8, 2000 175 Z Section 13 Correspondence regarding proposed project 18 0 Attachments:Draft Final EIR t ' tak i -, I Approved b pp by: .Y William R. Kelly, City Manager i 1 II Westrield\9-5ccrpt Westfield Project September 5, 2000 Page 2. -- SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • SECTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • BACKGROUND Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita (previously known as Santa Anita Fashion Park) was opened in 1974. The site consists of 80.63 acres and is developed with an enclosed shopping center and related parking (see Exhibits A and B, pages 6 and 7). The City has a parking easement on the southeasterly 2.8 acres of the 80.63 acres. Westfield purchased the mall in September 1998. There are four major anchors; Robinsons-May, Macy's, J. C. Penney's and Nordstrom. The addition of the Nordstrom's department store and the expansion of the Robinsons-May store were approved by the City Council in 1992 and construction was completed in 1994. There are approximately 140 mall shops. In addition.to the mall there are two TBA (tire, battery and accessories) buildings located in the parking areas on the east side of the mall. The following table provides information regarding the mall square footage. Area Gross Square Footage Gross Leasable Area* Mall stores 492,519 sq. ft. 394,105.sq. ft. Department Stores 704,580 sq. ft. 528,436 sq. ft. Total 1,197,100 sq. ft. 922;451 sq. ft. *Gross leasable area excludes service areas. There are 5,768 parking spaces on site. Existing Zoning and General Plan Designation The property is zoned C-2 & D and C-2 D & H8_and the General Plan designation is. commercial. The "D" is a design overlay specifically addressing design, setback and architectural issues. City Council Resolution 4185 (see Section 8) adopted on February 16, 1971 establishes the specific design regulations ("D" overlay) for this property as well as sets forth the permitted uses on the site. This resolution further requires that"Preliminary Plans shall be submitted to and Shall be subject to approval by the Arcadia City Council." . The H8 is a "High Rise" overlay that allows up to eight stories, 85' in height. The high-rise overlay is restricted to the mall building envelope including the department stores. The C-2 zoning allows a maximum of three stories not to exceed 40'-0" in height. . Westfield\9-5ccrpt 3 The General Plan designation for this site is "Commercial" with a.floor area ratio (FAR) of .40. The existing .40 FAR would allow up to an additional 300,000+ ; square feet of floor area to the existing mall. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (Exhibit C — page 8) Properties to the north and east are developed with the Santa Anita Race Track and zoned S-1 and R-1. Properties to the west across Baldwin Avenue are zoned R-1 and developed with single-story multiple-family units and the L. A. County Public Works Department. The northwest corner of Baldwin and Huntington Drive is zoned C-0 & D and developed with a.service station. Properties to the south across Huntington Drive are zoned R-3, C-0 & D and C-2 and developed with condominium/apartments and office buildings respectively. Developer's Proposal The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003) and Text Amendment (T.A. 99-006) to allow for up to a 600,000 sq. ft. gross leasable area expansion of the existing mall and revisions of the existing performance standards and design guidelines (existing Resolution 4185 — Section 9). The total gross leasable area after expansion would be approximately 1,522,450 sq. feet (Exhibit D — page 9). Neither architectural elevations nor a site plan were submitted with the applications. These will be submitted at a future date for staff, Planning Commission and City Council review !_ i and approval. At this time the applicant is applying only for the entitlements set forth above. The applicant's proposals would allow for the following: 1. Two (2) 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant.pads up to 10,000 sq. ft. each, located at the northwest corner of the site along Baldwin Avenue (Exhibit E — page 10). 2.. Major "open air" expansion of the mall buildings to the east (Exhibit E). The expansion will include the addition of new tenants and use categories not currently located in the mall.. Use categories may include a multi-plex theater, various restaurants, lifestyle tenants (e.g., home furnishings), department stores, food market and entertainment and specialty retailers. 3. Potential future expansion to the west. , aI Westfield\9-5ccrpt 4 4. Possible multi-level parking structure(s) on the east side of the existing mall. Additional parking spaces will be added as necessary by a combination of restriping existing parking areas and/or the addition of parking structures. Access to and from the site will continue to be from the existing points of ingress and egress along Baldwin Avenue and.West Huntington Drive. Specific information regarding the applications is set forth in Section 4. • Westfield\9-5ccrpt 5 /. (_ . • . • ■ • • ( /1:6 .\.2.,, \\..„.... • . •I / •AL------_____j El:________7—__________,1-------1 f T i4 L. .....„ • . 1 ---r_i a--1._:_—___2-2____H----------=24 syri-17. 7..:. __„ It ,k...,___T, rr._______„," . , c—:—LLL----:_—___-- zE-------3---,177------il_____, „ . 1 k____, ..,,s..._ __ ,.. � iiiir... ________,2; . J 1 7r JCPenney : lJ / . A I 7 `c1. a----� I W �- �- Nordstro Z -: j I i 9 Robinsons r--________. ! • • CO /r4 May . • . . k-4:11 ill -' . . T-------7L____' : / iv,..:42 I .L m ,5,/ . .i H \. - MI ,/. ._, .f-- '' " 1--I47 W --1 Macy s --v� . 41_1.-,,,--,1 1 • 't F.____ - — „k________2, 13. 1- ,i— --i ''':'"7:-:, ,,,,,T- u T •":/z;> 2) 1...-- I Ardadia J Fire Station ' 2 • HUNTINGT014 DRIVE a '- a ! I z a , . \. \ . IV I I J . I • Westfield Shoppingtown ►. • Expansion EIR -- t 0 250' 500' i- `';:,'s TEMPLETON PLANNING GROUP ! EXHIBIT A 6 • • • ._.._ . - (. • L ---- • ,- "-„..„:_,- . .,,,,,, p,:siz.,- . • . ,.. ..,,,, ,..* J.:;..:1;.--t-,-.:.::-...,.,..`.:P.:(-14' .1' ',14,71-r-r:;iff.4.•'0.-/.-t-ci-,..il-,„-T.,-' _.A.. - :. •:..;:.--7v..:,.„ ,.., --:,,,,...;,.,-;. -_,,-,--,-,1,,v,I i t:''''t .'i•-•":44V4e411,-.••••.-ItP,d.a' 40' ..,.:,,,,,,..1'lq_14. - ,;,-._,...eitiat,t41-''. .,i..,:.-E,.-:'-,..-Y-- --"R.,,,j-,0 '-'‘i-, Ig'Pt4 it-I ,,,.-..- ...-1 if, ,,-,.-2: ,-.1?.d..re3..-is, ,..7>- ,,,,..44-.f. fiffv, Y 1 .' 4'. ii,i* '` lVegq..-- ''' --'' - --=-''..41-p-A4Z.44-) •••--- '''.1,,!. •••-• . ....4. '• --='.•••• , .- •••••= •g,..Z4.1.. .A r...,..-F.:4., - t. .. ••'-',". . -',Ltill..R1,...4.- ) ' . ',lip, ,,. 77Z.;- v, ,/, 44t.t.,,....., ' ---71,a0.• ,.. . ,_,..,c4kil- 44,147.15:04-rf.X.4v ,...._,11,-- 7 ,,,, : ...,, • p.,....:_,..,..„,; .,... .. ,r,;.#1..C.34.- ,,......k.e3p., . .__,,.....-Nr...,14i,. .,....-'..,,,.tille.'14-' ,74.P.i.42,,tilt,,,LI,A-..''''Ittlgo■ a..,r: . .?" •-.• .• .F . . '`..,,i... , ,, ,,.„4.,....,-- • . - , -,,... , ,„....,r,ffy,,,-„,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,...„,,,,...„,.....,,.6 .,.,,,,,,....„,, ,. ,.„ ...„ „.,,,,,, , ,,,„ ..A. / t.,.,.....:: ',.. 1,442.A,V.,r..,, rit,L-,,,,O,V1404'.- ,al.,..S'i• 15;_....; ....,i . t,.. '., -;;.....,1•"q,;`..rn 91. "4.'WA- N,.'/ -• ',■,...:" -.'",.=4;.,..,1 .,,,..44:gy..r6'7441,1 ",..kg....Trg....,?-:-.4,,,,,,,,4, ,,..q1:1;:t. '''''''' ''' • ' '^-,, 1-",,C1F a'1.7.1in!tnii A-,•2`. f 7 - ,---77,-,•=7-f.-.7---.--. --.5A01---1--0-4,-,igiq-.4ir-1,. .•.--1-•••••-.0,:f0t ;•.• - 1.,..0.,.. 4,...-'4,4•,••••d•I• -..• • ,••"- r' • --;-- ..--'-.,-",,,,--•,7-,..,'- .•'511.,,,,-..„4-4-,_,--ik,-.0.•-,-,,,,,C--,e.1., igl• 47: ... ' 4 ; -". '.,... V.1 ..4d•..* ' --.1' ...' :''' ...4.2.--,;.'"-t."-..,*•-•.^--,-it1/44"7.r.49*-,TarW4W'-t • •'' L Ii.....5'.. ,--,--,,,,"V 1 ,I'l• ..,1-',.. i' ''4 "VI ''''' • ,,.1. --.... ---,..*.,‘-:.c..W.-f:4-1•77:14:17.:••••`--0_, ,., .,.. 1 ''-(4.C=11- 1/ '1••• 4- l'?"•I'• .i.11 1--- -.1 - .-"n" ,-,'"--.%•-•-•-: •-1.7.=4:4.:•'•*.C•`;•;---._ ..'"04,4tA0.•PLA.OLS- ••:: -....e-..A•,-. .,-, . -4--,. _ 14-.4 . -0.--..,5,1•''.....,'..1-5-fi.,-..-,1•%,,•'-,-0.._ • .,-„.• •-„,..::,......... -4..,:---4-w,•,-..•.% •• • - g3).5,,-'•-.;1•"-..,-"-•''"••:op D.-i• ,07:4P-,',7"; .4.'•••„kl..,, ----.:-:-,-.--,•.- . ----,,,,,L4..z.,:„•-•:0, •-•,z,,;.4‘'f" - _,,. ,i t;, 7•01. ,...,w....,.41 4 .,..„. ..„....„...„..,,. -:':Fii,,,Zi4,11;;;;,:•,,..._.;',',--c •,..11'.T.3, „, ,,..„1,±, tk.t ,.1.-...,4xi,:.7----...,,_ --,...1,-....„-..2,,.....,•7-7-7.;,-,--4.,,,,,-.::::-.,, -,..,..--- •.-. ' ..........--p.,., IL,_ .,-4 .',. •_.-•;,..*4.:,:luty•: _-.-..,..-\;11:,:a4-,Lt 1:::" -6 I , ".,:' ''',"..A7:1:-..77,-. •-.,,'• pot ,. ,R. .r.,--- . ' "4•:.::*.- .-,4t el.4--,...,,•.; ._1,--,4'. ....., ,i, ,,,-.1 --,,,,,,,--.,. '1 • A'''. I'•-'''''-..'"' '.','"„riNi; ".-.••T•.-•'•Mi.,:4 ;67,,-.,-...• ,',"7-0. :•1 -;:;••••,,,,•-...:., A - =-,-,-.4,---77.--1., r_i. ,..., ., 2.,,,..f.-,...,,,„•, .„., ..,.,.,..,..,,,4„„.v.;.,., ..w..03,4`."5....---.........., .... *-..a.4...4., 74:-.4-__:,..., .r., ..i`VijI :1 r +. jfA•,.,-;-•::.,. -,,,::44.1,','At,...m.';.:11.,,AV,":a!11"tiT,-,1: ,i., - • i' .y.;•',%r-- 0, .0,;••":•"-i'.1.‘•,• -- 7....- ,-..,••‘1-.•;-.• ;:••,-4.;•viitt,,"-e-..A.'•••401•70.4m,;`&4-1';:-`.--,1' •---•■• ..r• 1 -ill'. 1,0-•-.■-•.."' -•-•,•. •••c..a.:. -,•••••••.5.,•:..Ili:,_4e....„„z ,......-,,,..q.,....T4,.1.2_,...-1,,,.....,,,,-;; -,,,,•_tx_;.„,.i .....s.„,- „....,..i __„:„i.„, I ,,,,..,,,..,,.. .,,,, ,,,,,,,9._,,.. ,, ;,,,;r,: i,..•,..,....,,,..,,v14.'",....;;; N.: ;'----SF.,',-,,Z--::::."&,-....:-...-;11; r, p!''774.,:-.11. , --14-'T••,,..,. „.,,,,yr .. ,i‘"F•Af'-•.•- -0-, 1.7-4-'',-'4:4"-:•-•,-,'„....-..-...„,-:•-•._:.-•4•,._..',..-r.-==i-r-T"-AC.•,-,'-`...,:N.:i...-A.•••••;.F.''--- --.1-,0::',-4-• . .% -"'..- P• 4-,---:-• - •'-‘-'t- •Ai ,-• s- 1,--,‘:-- •.,- %•-. V.--,i,t,,,t0-,,,,-0,.?.."4..„,..•' --t•t,.....,•:,---0.....,...-..•0--,;•.,--,..•,:-.1 -,- -0.--y- • ., :-, „s....„, 4113-.. ■ f...1.K '''''''''-,....-4.:`%;-,4,5;14-4.- ..,....::-:,1, ,1:1. ::,,: * ..;1'.. i' k"ff" Per 4744/,,.. *-4,2&14 [..77 ,..,..,:-... .41...T■ .1, , , ., L..... r .fr- ' .-, , --,g*,... . -..'" ".`"::,.-1,37F4,4,_Zt-:--7::''.4,-. ;-;'-'.,-,...' . i''' 4 f ,t. 't%4 - -,,,, --f:_..,-,-,... .. , .. - -.. ,,-.„...-,.: ...,,,,,;,.zdtt.,4.3gf,--. .I: .. ...,- .:',..e.l ",;.. ' t ._ p -,,,,-,..i..,*,1,2,.:,--:. ,., . .,....1&,--:-.z,.,..„.,,C1•.--,-,.A.:.:--,..-•:,..t;- . •(4•1•-•z„,.•,.---_i-.••if0.41 „i-1 .4,-,1`..0,:••44-30•,..21-1.;;p•••••?.....-05s tv.,7•1;..,; 4 • ,, .,•, ..,.•-•,..,.•;-3,,, , . . --.---0_•.t,-,_....!.•,....--*.••-ii2.:..„,,,- .5 --...•;-'•7.:'-..11e-77•4 "-- ,ENNE.5,v , , ,....,.....4,-,.v. ,..,.-.-:,:r - ...i ez.,-.::::,,,,, ,7,-A-...,,,,,. - .• ar2.7%.,c r- --'' '1'?.' :''.'.4gFE'VAIt4i .)11%7 --SrP2' -.P..'.,'1'' :'„..%fl-.1rt .--''":"'"-Ns, , ,71,-, ,PATA---• 7).„.....,:..A.'„4.`,T;.4-„,*,,,,t.,,UPthii'k,,„ '-d4'i -...^ ''• ••••i'"- -4•••=4:" n 'A;a'.-,.;-*-4-.. .K14:-V,..,.,..,7x,::,7.-;,..-„: ._, ,.., .,,,,.. ,',., .., ."..,, ,. 1,4K.. ..-er •., :_>4.,...- ,L-,-- -1-f,,,„. ..i.':,• ..%,:t7-.,..'4;.,---ok'h-4.,7•47.2.-7A•,,,.,\FifrA,trP4.hrk-4.1.-i-rie)1.1-,,., ,; 4,-..%--.2.11M--,,Z.',''',".. ,;.,ts,,, ,,„prz Ti.Y.1,1:Er,?,,'-f,77.:L is.,•• •,?,411 Of..."- ,"It 4.,..e.r.. ' • -..-- ,e 1,?•,..,-."44.54,1y442- , 7-=';•.,.2-:-',*1-.. f'.1..r.,-)A2;:vong.;,.-4.%-*, :' ,,,-;-!,..1.014?,,,-,1 4,,,;ti; ' , I.'I'? .4-, .-1,.;*4.p.i4.,_.--,41.tf.4,.,le-7...!..fUl.;.V.O.:-&;;;.04, fri93.=-•'.4q4-"::-.V•t'1'ehr1='WrAl'd-4,1',--11A.i,.,0=c---A1 -t':,i.1,- . '.A' .• .a,. .-,r"' .-1,- --Wr--ho-;777*'....4„.,' 4.--:-..1,-•-...„7.A...,._ :13.-r. .--m,..-, 1-c•;;;;,.., ,....k.-6744-7?-' -''.., -1,-.--.4th.'9,44t.-..w,--...4-1'.*''f'.4-A,...- ..,,..' .- .'„ ';',-'_-"...-'c-if....%,,1".6-, ,,w-r Ag::•'' .tpi:ER.kr41.4:fr', ;.,y- 1-L----,,T6,,i;.,:--5,1 '7-1.fill,74..4.41.4:5;i1.4aVr 7:::•""'"7:::ts. -':..idiat41"ig AttZ710114*-tilf4A,a•c ,..(''tX:-,r , :',I.1-lefir*S'f,Ifli' F-,:4 '-'71,0-NeitiF,-Vif 1 ed'itdf•iiijZT,-;';,,7Yoln'SRalit:4-4._itiltt, A5,4,:**frb;kr, ,4'4...1V-4: '6,c,. 1.1tit.v,i44-414.14,*4-41e44,* --;A:4.1.,..,-, r,F,,,,,p,,,,,,,g0T.,v.,-.-A- --...-. -Z ,„,..,...„,,,,41-,, -4,„,,,,,,,,,,,,v,-,,,,--„, e. ''i:'•,.,-1:itit Li,-... *;#1,V••:ICTEW't,ikeX.C...:73r - 404 "-g.''' '4''. Vt'J'MlAsS2W.4.44.24:':42:-...4?.4W ;t'r7'-f "."''''`''', . ' i''' ' "'..--zifi.-,-Q,--:* - i-%:::-. --,--wk .,,,,-.....:4,-:,.. •.,--F:.-'1t_;i,"f ,:lt-Giit744v,-.."---&-,-11.v ,,'-'t•r,j;lri ''.- -',.A.;:,--Alitt.,„_,A,T1-Fpjit,O4-. -.,.%;ttg.f.tr-,e:p4--"•Ii_;,.-,.. it 7y%,,,,,iN,q,,,„z.-=,'1/4•-'..'''•',§egriVf),41‘41f9grA,4F2- iNgig"' A.1441,m1..„5.-574° • so ,..1'-q.-...4---4..tr J.,-.., -,--•-434-.g.---'7.' L•••-••=1-.4.71.0•:.F if••••••-•..*:.:•,.-,4.-•,:q .F...• -11.1}111:0,..4..-„,.. 0;4%. . •...tAad_14-a :1-.. ka•---...-,b5'.-Tp-4 -/--•.---"---11,- •-.-i.l......-..;-5-0..., 0.. ',•0,1 .=0,s-r-i--1 "c•-;.•••:.‘,...,,, i --il...,,,-,-4,F,,,x-lol--1.t.4--•-t+-.,t;e1410.1-45-''' 5.-=---:-"-,'1.-e Eciravt-4,,...-fi,4----4.,,I, .i,h.,-zitre r.,:k..;,:i-z.1-4,..4-. f .:.:g,.--...t -1,.,t-._,,a.-5.4-1,-....4A,,e,13-.*A.k.akt, -..-' ,.,-.• r-.4 -4..-1.6 "07-- ,..k7.-14-2.4.-t04..4:,-„1--...... ,...-e;-..4z..A.I.,-,,,,4t.tit-reff,,J-... ...r.,;,,...k)... '...14'.47,-,....04,,',,,;' t..rea-3,iii.-,1 ;r.,...L.---- i-1. -ik--ff-f-,,,.0.,,,.. .: -.. --_, -•'''',14--.11.7;11-,,p ',_•-SW.4X1S-11i&:-Ael,en rt::4T,4.,• .. V;47,2:1-4;i4fittq. .,,q k ife--F:`-liqt..%*,',V,I;4,14,'vy'4,, ,_-95:45,,,,,V4I0' 7,,,,,,k11,,,14.1 4.--1M5`1%,,,,,Eitqc,V4.1;,:ild,r1.4%,";T:Z:".■,, .-7,:,:111.■14*te-04-0-.. ,''7'7%' '1 L.' - 11‘ri44-ifir:t.SAtiVOIrg atreflitaill'WW, ,151',11 ‘•2",'.','P . il,.. ,.,,,y -.44.4;r1 Op kitt:P`Ps.k._.' k 1..„1:1iliv4...1%,...w.wi-i.„ 41..reas:o.pop Alr-ortz,oky,,lop'...;•----45'.... 2411 1-74.1,5 iii-3..Atif.29i.446A,y,.4-..1-7 7. - -, •tibi.,N54'410-k.ohd-tA4604 '-;,41,-.. .4,..c.,47,Av-- .T.;Lptp„,,.. 11‘,14.q.1:0?-49.,,%,-,.',z4.5.4-A,,, kie'vf4i-dPto,-,*-,_-_,-..t., --erogf-,,**--irr7.43.t..,7141,-;Erlei,-,,... 44- fi.,Air-Ln'Y ify-w.,...•fe,t-,.*.k.,yr.lik,„•?;•••im.ji..k---A.Q.,Wirs_.-1.0-..;t9-q.-..i.af,A.,171;,.,•-•-•,•7..i_MTr. ,,J.,..tc:,,,!....V.:i4._-,-04,.... f.-:;:e4r-Z:gil ,Iti&'53riii. ,.hkel,, ', -"' ..tqX-gli.At'114.:--- -Ak, ,,,..1,%-.A.we.71011.'',...''.1'..V'''S'-.'T' . . . . z4,-.t.--.1%-•,;_;---1.4:.,t,:li rit, quager---4, t,.;,93,-...,,,,,_,....,1%.4.4,4. .0-:' 1-14,,•,1W,itzr-.-4-'...,:;;•14 OSA-51.-tr"-.0.,7-,:,>._,. -T-Akpt,„kg-tv,t!,z.t..-m-Ritsfkik.4g-,-4-.,. poirsziomot.4,,,%-,17,1,*,,,r,q#7,-,-,..gehp.sk*A4i:rt,--,._,, ET,44,44,,,A1,..Si.tat .,;, 4-,...-1,'.4 ,w4,z,14,,„ ,;,,,,,,,,ft qa,,,,,-,.•*Lkt.--.q.":140,-1/4-744sahriftv:4,..._jr:3-41,--;,.,.- „-!--,4..,4)..4.-2-,,s,;41k-,.7':4•-•, 4^„plke-X•1041-,,,'01'44•V;:-.1g•4S-4A''ikV14-1-,V,IV-RriV.,:1,01.81.11704-1 .; '••••IV:0"'"(:';'••.2%;ce"- -J4'•'- '.. Y.4•,"?'"0--,?....s0-1,4.,hilyr-f-tleg.%. .41,-,-••'.'.1.1-.-'-'0. AP4,1.41...4,1'-0,024..w-41*-301.441.;g■-tligt•%,..t..--ft,--i,g4,4;In-rzew_Trit,,,74.,,,tvr;_t,,,,:i4,,.- ., -,-_• i, .ri.Illigalitek *istL4'f-A9-*:fir'-,rfT.-*gr ARf:.Frii'-'.;:--...qc1;''.'t W- t'?. 4,-;..0t4,10.4 47'r'-;•,''.• •0-..fd i4.-.441-4N474-'"2rrr•iP-IY-64--. /.1,-,1-- --t:6.T`•1-.•-■•. leli,r40.Vre,z 71,T,F,1%,:iikr._ 4i , 4-`,7PAri,k,-,4*,6it--.,,,,".'?4,40:7'4=-4.., S'ig 'ifX*.t.0)7V1 '',1-h.ig"1 Ili.' '4,,„_(1 Alaill0,0,f, .=:Arlietr2ttrA ?"..'..Al r .1.1,-,c4-.0 r4441.0.,k`-f.;4'.1,,,,?.....0-S'A ,114.5,p..7,--0..,:m&P ,_.'•-4 . 2•,et:l, i- w.m.s-,-„..,:,..,,e,..-&,,-,..ork.:-,!r„---9.:‘,:. . ., -, ,,,,_,. .,.....,,,,,,,t,,,,,...F,,,4,s...,1,..,,,, -. 46,4.,..0.1,,- ,-_ -1,,z-........-..,,,,,Te44--t.Iskt--,.v.--.E.,..44,14e4.-. .„,..,,,,,2 • • .7-..41----- 44.,,,.., ,`,..arg-.1.T.it..k,. kmu -,A.-e-Ait4:4,4:u ;',.,• 'r''"...`4- ..,-2-174.-*.tr-f1A71.41.::-.-u-,..tf-g-7,,,-,-.4,1--:,5-it.;',--,•:,.-.- • ,,,,,-.12, 14,-,F.:'-',-2 5..,...,.:-.,,,,,p4t-Art iltea7A.--,,-...-.. ,,,t...-2,...:',"p".11cei----fr:,F1'''''',),-'--.S•"0-.---- '•••• ,Orit.f.0:'•.;!,'.3:,2 3)ii:1/4'..7.-'257,!,..-:7'...--1,,,,,,;1:1:.! ...i :ii..".•`. ..:.:,.i.1444..i,-16:f'', ;:y Wijkl(Mhf,:..*T.Z41.011-,,*.A,'-',,,g.k."''-14....k.C.:-.,71%.,,,t:4 I'',25i,.. j-:-.,e f", lfrf,i'",:;'1'1"1:A.,"ft,"41-44.4C,--:- ::'5i '''... ', r af-,::- .°44''-'.r'.','; --4'0'.....- VC:43=',-;4444:0941:tr.it'rifktrf0:"*.41V-0.1,-;44401273';1:,''•''' K:C.:11,,-..:'-ig'•;1.-2:'," -,.,,i;:-.. 7,-.!1.4.:*.L.,'-_„%14.40,7'-.- A.,--•&-..`i'.6.6'kr`... -,',2-,•-•"'!-?,,..--.--11.-.,„,41,---.1i--Teti tr,. ,-3.,TA,ht,„,&..ty.2.ztg.p.;,„...,..,,,,.. .4,.,.....,..,..: ._-.,•,.....•,., .,.,... . ,La,.1,=;•,.. p, ' ,-..r.,__ .”.....1-5,1v, ,,•.,13.-.•?-,,r4,,i7-4.-,;.----,-;-•=.:•,.---er,-74-2-4,..-,:is,...-f .t.f.„Tki-1.:, ,..---...-..;c5,...--,_sIsi.T.T ,.,,..L...i. 1''',, :+ ,..r,'`,8"eit4g.'ifIE.' .trirnr.cgr.. . I4it547:r."="472X""A`.-1 "...,- ‘-•t,"..',76.-`-.-4.-Sft 7 :- i7A,'''-';',,;;."'..'. '• , .i..' 7-:-•,-,-!..*C.-•-r-,/fiCiq:,1.1.--.---44. ---,,,- • •.--...,,,,,-,.--;-F.:,;`,t-,---,:-0• I . .._,..:c.,---1,,,,.....-c, ,..- ,,...- ,.,•.,, g..-teWL.I_ErviUve.1-•-:---__.'„:7-..., . •.7- f 1-r, -•'' ..• -.4 s'. - • vp- -, ,,-.,,, ,i3f- A.--zz1 -....-- ray .1f l'---;---1---Tv-I4,411e-aZ')1r1L-..:,. '-iiii, ----44t...,--,-.4.z t! 'JR..,,-' -'7:- .. ._ - 7.--,::-.,,- ...,...„:..-,,I.,,,, -,,-,..... _ d,--- ri7,-,,,.k...-)-=',...4 -..:,...tc„,..-.....y--,.' OkP i,,,,S. .1'il7-7":" Fi..‘ ,.., .4" -" i'; "", 4,`"4.-,' " • z■7-..i...A...,-,`"*.-.,--,- , ,,---,-,a-111.'•-1 1•-`"- - -..,-.)-!,04 pirili.- 1, ,.,li le' tItr ^-I • -•., t '.. ' '''` - -,- - '-".-- " - %',„,.,Pal-ex,'N'ult,414'ty.li-',..T. I.i.,-.41tt :',,vi..-'t.-kr,:t -.7 -,f 'q.:,:•,teg:,a.1,1.4,1 f, , 7-4, 4144,..n- 4 I",4' -5•:. ,;i••,7"1-4 i':' ,...2.*: , z•: ''':'''''''.''21r9- 7':-;:'-1A74";-:if''I-3- .•'':='-'----M-s‘‘- . TA":.-v•r"..4.t..-40,•iiA4-' -Z'',-......,,• _•-...11. ..,PA:=:Y.--.7-!"--•,•- Ed ,t ,x :,-:.::• --2'.-,ritre'P.'-.."••-7,--.2c. •-• '"- ' ■•1% 'Th- .--- lotr,,.•.- - 1, •tt•-• =• 1..,. .- .-,;,... P-rporr•..t.;-•• , , 1:',.. - ,- .1,•,... 4Z.,,q1-a.1.1.7*.■Ippit`_,,s.0,=*,",,,..-I :'-i t.ii.,4.3,"" .. ."' ''.,747`114.,51-6,513,-''.1,41fdr, e'•:.•a''..74,..'.14 - .-.. _= --: ..,.....I.. .. • A•5q4--;,-*,,,,.,-b''''.:2.,':.1.''',,C!.1-.=.‘.-04 '1_;.._,c-A-._,,..-7.--,----aii4,:,-..,;.4, ? .m,or_zo:&A,y1;t7:•-v.J... tlir,F.'--'3'-: •' '4,,..-,,,::••i, Y.-,,--.-A-Z, -40'--,,..-40.7,,- ',..1, -f4th ':,litiji-..,Z.c.r,•,A,...:_.,_,,,,__-..f.„.--,:,,,-..„...,..-:---.... -::-..•..- ..-ir,i-'.ie,-- -51.-,„..-'.it7,-4,..,--)..141....-,..,..,4,,!„-,,p-&,..",,,,..1,--:ftei, ,.., Vii:.-.17..1,, :t.`,..,,,.__7,..,:,!...7.!..L.,,‘,„%t,..........-n,.:kr.Ztir....',.'":ill'?-.■:i...;,...::.....s, '..:.....7............ „ ,,.C..'6,.1".' -:',77.-",*----;.':.-."...s'..f.......-",•...1-&•,,,,:^.-:';'';',-:"..z....'r ..1,...!':;r:':' '. ' ::.':,''...:.'',.','.',.:. :• ......::..:•,...........".:••-v.•,-.';-1-3gfief.:*.a., ' ''.,.,'. -.. .. ;,:,,:::,,,■,:‘,,.....,;;;‘,:,:z.::...,:t::::.::■,?,Si:47...;?"'',:ioipy Westfield ShdP:Pri - ....:-......., .:: :,.. .. .,.. . ., - . ;. . 1 - --.:,,r ,, ,.:P...?..,...,-■•...„..,,,,f..,..7,-_.-z„,,,....„ ....4....,-.z.... ...- t'.in'','' - .:.:'.'.. •.--•--: • • • .. . ,..,•:•;:z:-•;.-.:-..-.- •I'•`••''•••-•.•-•.;•r^'-‘:"."''''''''"".. -..- . . ---- •,- - EXOCil.1.$10n ulA, .,..2.-•-..-....-•:..',.•,' -- •-- --'---_-. -' - . '. ' ' - • • . 7T..7; . . -- - • • • - • ... ..._ . Ti PtAF.INPRa Go.., .. , • , .•. 4,•ff. - -,. . • :... :• •.r..•-•• ( • :••.*:,• •. • 1 7 EXHIBIT B • 1 ( ' "1'P.t vr..4 4r I 1.1I.F____44:2--,--.._____i c .. . 3.....,.....,i,r. ' . • . • • ■■-■ 4 901 / . • . • S-1 • . . r S-2 • R-1 — R-1 . ••• ..\ \......:„._ S-1 « C-2 Si& - ..." 7-- DH8 r.1.1 . ir: ',Ali . .• . —)ZI____-------94 . C-2 & D H8 R-1.-7----76._ ��J R-1 ,',. G2 & tr___ :.I D H8 "-� jJ .--/DR• 0 WM.. ! c' cv,o R-3 R-3 6 F-1 R-M RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS E1 S-2 PUBLIC PURPOSE Q C-0 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE• -n C-M COMMERCIAL-MANUFACTURING 22700 i25m S,\I p AUTOMOBILE PARKING r1 C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL Q M-I PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT in 0 R-I SECOND ME-FAMILY ONE-FAMILY MI r, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN n C-1 LIMITED COMMERCIAL CJ M-2 HEAVY MANUFACTURING ',., R-I SECOND I Y.FAMILY ( D 5-I SPECIAL USE H SPECIAL HEIGHT n C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL (� (l R-2 TWO FAMILY. (-� CPD•t COMMERCIAL PLANNED Q R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY C80 CENTRAL BUSIteSS I=71 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT • rr�r®�r� Westfield Shoppingtown • pa ns i on EIR ZONING DESIGNATIONS S - ":%. 0 500' 1000' 0--) 4;:,.,7r-, .#. TEMPLETON PLANNING GROUP EXHIBIT C 8 • . . , ..„ , .1 . . • . • Use Gross Building•Area Gross Leasable Area (Square Feet) (Square Feet) EXISTING (.4 FAR)1 • Mall Stores 492,519 394,0152 Department Stores 704,581 528,436 • I Subtotal(Existing) 1,197,100 922,451 PROPOSED (.5 FAR) Retail Shops and Anchor Stores 465,000 Multi-Plex Theaters 110,000 Freestanding Restaurants/Retail(combined sq. ft.) 20,000 Mall Food Court 5,000 Subtotal(Proposed) 600,000 TOTAL: • 1,522,451 PARKING SPACES Existing • 5,768 spaces' Proposed Additional Spaces (4.5 per 1,000 s.f. of GLA)....... . . 1,083 spaces .... TOTAL (4.5 per 1,000 s.f. of GLA): 6,851 spaces 1 FAR refers to floor area ratio. The FAR requirements limit the amount site building coverage within a project site. For example,a .5 FAR would allow a one-story building to cover 50% of the site, while a . two-story building could only cover 25% of the site. 2 Per Westfield's Rent Roll • 3 • Per ALTA Survey dated 9-10-98 Note: Gross Building Area includes service areas,whereas Gross Leasable Area excludes service areas. The •• amount of service ranges from 10% to 25%depending on the type of tenant. Typically the majority of • small shops include 10% to 15%. Department stores generally include more service area, approximately 25%. • • , • EXHIBIT D 9 • • II BUILDING AREA A ... • • - l.0. COUNTY ARBORETUM MULTI-FAMILY _ PUB IC WOR{ •• RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC WOFRS �i DISTRICT OFRCE I WASHINGTON UNION 76 BPLDYAN AyENUE MU TIDAL -- BUILDING AREA D 11.111111111111.1111mummiimi• II �gT`� m 1 II m ` HOME , ARCADIA FIRE 7 SAVINGS STATION Na.2 - ✓ •� �l - ■ STATE FARM (, J 7` -j. .1 C • � d INSURANCE t w ":l J Q 8 i---1 I I UL • 1\ I. 'A ©UL NORDSTR7M f:--9 • Z �� • V -9 m m fir- 1• • � m• co 1TJj11i :urantPads(1O,oOOsf..each)iiiid. 0 AuE \\ IIIIIIIIIIIIII' ® westside Expansion Area :I m1 mII i . _.. ! ® Eastside Expansion Area . \ MULTI—FAMILY i•SANTA ANI TA PARK RACE TRACK PARKING RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AREA C . \ • ENrhibii -s - Westf ield Shoppingtown I. POTENTIAL ,EXPANSION AR :, S Expansion EIR A C TEMPLETON PLANNING GROUP I o 4I00' g�DO • r� I u • - 1' • • • • • SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS SECTION 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND FINAL EIR Prior to taking action on a project, the Lead Agency must certify the adequacy of the Final EIR and certify that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving a project. In regards to this project, the City of Arcadia is the Lead Agency and the City Council is the decision making body. • The environmental review process began with the filing, of applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment to allow the construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion to the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita. • Based on an initial study, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report was necessary. The EIR has been prepared to examine potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the development of the proposed project and further to identify mitigation measures that would either avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. Included in this Section is Table 1-1 a Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures that were originally set forth in the Draft EIR. A Notice of Preparation was circulated on December 9, 1999. The Draft EIR was available for review between May 19 to July 3. Both the Notice of Completion and the Notice of Public Hearing listed locations where copies of'the EIR were available for public review. Notice of tonight's City Council hearing was published in the paper and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius as well as interested persons on August 3, 2000. Templeton Planning Group under contract with the City and under the City's direction prepared the EIR. The City conducted its own independent evaluation and analysis of the Draft EIR prior to releasing the document for public review. PURPOSE OF AN EIR Pursuant to Section 15121 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and Section 21002.1 of the Public Resources Code, the EIR is an information document that informs the decision-makers and the public of: • Significant adverse environmental effects of a project; Westfield\9-5ccrpt 11 1 ; • Possible ways to minimize the significant effects; �- j • Reasonable alternatives to the project;. and • The manner in which these significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. Section 21002.1[c] of the Government Code states that "If economic, social or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project.-may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations." _ ,, tj Set forth below is a summary of the EIR. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS • The Draft EIR identified the following "potentially.significant impacts" that can be mitigated to a less than significant level (see Table 1-1 for details): • Aesthetics 1 • Geology and Soils Li • Land Use and Planning • Noise • Public Services • Transportation/Traffic • Utilities/Service Systems The EIR identifies one "unavoidable adverse impact", air quality, that would result 1 if the project is approved. I If the City, as the Lead Agency, determines that an unavoidable significant adverse impact will result from the project, the City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision making body. has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects and has considered the adverse effects to be acceptable. ALTERNATIVES • The CEQA guidelines state that an Environmental Impact Report must address "a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." Not every conceivable,alternative needs to be addressed nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered. Westfield\9-5ccrpt 12 The Guidelines further state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving major project objectives. The following three Alternatives have been discussed in the EIR: • Alternative 1: No project (mandatory CEQA alternative). Under the "no project" alternative an additional 300,000 sq. ft. could be constructed within the current building envelope in accordance with the existing City Council Resolution 4185 (Section 9). The current building envelope would exclude the two restaurant pads located near Baldwin Avenue. This alternative is consistent with the adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The "No Project" alternative would. reduce potential aesthetic, air quality, land use/planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems impacts when compared to the proposed 600,000 sq. ft. project. Air quality impacts would still occur. Since this alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. • Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative (450,000 sq. ft. expansion). This would still require a General Plan Amendment; however, this alternative would slightly reduce the bulk and mass of the expansion. This alternative would reduce potential air quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems impacts when compared to the proposed project. Significant air quality impacts would still occur. Since this alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. • Alternative 3: Alternative Design. In response to concerns expressed • regarding potential view blockage of the historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands from West Huntington Drive, this alternative would move the expansion area from the eastern portion of the property to the west. All other components would remain the same. This alternative would increase potential aesthetic, land use/planning and noise impacts when compared to the proposed project and is considered environmentally inferior to the proposed project. CEQA requires that a Lead Agency identify the "environmentally superior alternative". Based on the analysis the environmentally superior alternatives are the "No Project" alternative and the "Reduced Intensity" alternative. The "No Project" alternative does not achieve all of the project objectives; the "Reduced Intensity" alternative may achieve most of the project objectives although the related environmental impacts are similar to the proposed project. Westfield\9-5ccrpt 13 • I I Significant air quality impacts would still occur with the "No Project" and the "Reduced Intensity" alternatives and as a result a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" would be required for either alternative project. MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures have been identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in Section 3 of this report. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On July 25, the Planning Commission reviewed the Final EIR and on August 8 the Commission voted' 4-0 with one member absent to adopt Resolution 1613, 1 Li forwarding the Planning Commission's comments to the City Council on the Final Environmental Impact Report for a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003) And Text Amendment (T.A. 99-006) for the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita Expansion. The Planning Commission in their review of the Final EIR commented that most comments had been clarified in the Final EIR, and further noted the following: 1. The shared parking issue needs to be further reviewed in the Final EIR. !, The Development Services Department is recommending' that the shared parking issue be completed when the applicant submits plans for architectural and site plan design review. 2. The traffic study should specifically discuss the race track impacts. Page 4-3 in the Final EIR under responses to Commissioner Murphy notes that "Existing traffic generated by the Santa Anita Racetrack operations during the PM peak hour are included as part of the background traffic counts completed as part of traffic study". 3. In regards to Air Quality, the Final EIR should take specific notice that it is an unmitigated environmental impact. _I The Final EIR includes Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR specifically identifies Air Quality as an unmitigated environmental impact. FINAL EIR (FEIR) Prior to taking any action on the project, the City Council must certify that the Final EIR: • has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality J Act (CEQA); i ? Westfield\9-5ccrpt 14 • I • • has been reviewed and considered by the City Council; and • represents the City's independent judgment and analysis. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR are included in the "Preliminary Final" (under separate cover). The CEQA process requires only a once-around review process. Public review is required only at the draft EIR stage. The Final EIR can be submitted directly to the decision-making body of an agency for consideration. Section 15089 of the CEQA guidelines states: "The Lead Agency [City of Arcadia] shall prepare a final EIR before approving the project. Lead Agencies may provide an opportunity for review of the final EIR by - the public or by commenting agencies before approving the project. The review of a final EIR should focus on the responses to comments on the draft EIR." FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making findings, the City must not approve the project if the project will have a significant effect on the environment after imposition of feasible mitigation or alternatives unless the City finds that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environment effects. If the City Council determines that the project should be approved, the City is required by CEQA to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining why the City is willing accept each significant effect. This allows the decision-maker to balance the benefits. of a proposed project against the unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The statement setting forth the overriding considerations; supporting the City's decision must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the record. Attached for the City Council's review and adoption is Resolution 6197 (Section 7) Certifying the EIR and approving the Findings of Fact,, the Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. City Council Action The City Council should adopt Resolution 6197 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Westfield\9-5ccrpt 15 Westfield Shoppingtown expansion project, adopting environmental. findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a `-" Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program END OF SECTION 2 l — a i l L_J 1� 1 � I lfi Westfield\9-5ccrpt 16 i I TABLE 1 -1 PROJECT IMPACTS AND PRELIMINARY MITIGATION MEASURES FROM DRAFT ER ._ .. -I _.. _ — - 'L.. � - .�. ---.- . . r - r_ - - .. . ..- ---r.. v.,}•:.v;•;::.;,;;,•:•.,•:.,•:•:;•>:•}:i::;•'t,+;.;.}:•.;:v}}':::.}•K•TV••:\•+•:;t,+,+•:.;•n.:•:.,.,. ....,•: v,..v. v.•.}:<,+:•x«?:,.:.::;+.•:.;••.}'::i:-•• ,•,^K•+•i;;..,,.i:<;•^}:i... -- - --- --- - :..410.\,......,.:.,».....xf. ,n,. ?: )::. nn,. .:•4 :•f. ..4 , ..}iT....fi�. 4 N,n. f: ,.t#C0'•ht,..h. 4 t •r;}•: :.uxt•}T'0:•:•. T. il.gi+.•.. .......... ...n.. nv ?v...., n..?g.%;. \K,+44.. }�+k''�„ , v .,,,v.,'}.,:•:.::v...;...:.. : i..... ,inv.'}'r .?,4.x }}v v,4,}v ,xv�v} .n4 4,v.ti..,:...n „•... .:,� .`'}�. nn4.t., ..:}: .. .T.4 vn.. ..:,.. ,. „..: ,:. n,:..,..,,.,:-J\. ,,,4.}T,•.a•.:,,,:454.0t•::•} •}4y +..vR},:}}} 'S:o.�:}::•:y: ._ 4.4.}..:• ,.3. ,.. .. .,. .. ,•:n.•. :.. .. ,... ,x 4,....V.. .h•::;.+0fh.v.;.}0:;•:K••}•:;..' ..:4' A}'J,+}.•:::::•:;.} ,:.,,: } ..+.. .tk .0 +^'o. :•tart . .:w,> :,.. .,{vK,.....}:,h.n 4 y{4, ,. 44 vh::O,nK 4A... : K.,,... v .nv .... ,.v......... .. .. h., tv ...:...AG.., .;,\T:�•.},;.,, .�+v�:.}vv?y.v 3�,\ �n `•?{ :v 4�"$}\. v\S,v^n0. rv;};}$. .4.\4„M,:. .4... .:V'.K•...:.?i:.K:.^,,v:.,n,;T,,.:..%....}..::i :•,4}:+^\kh:,}: h\?v, p .:K.v., �v ,:h;.:,h,f;4 {v 4 .. '. 4\,..,, .vK T..ti}?i'\ ?vf ,.^x ..}}��h .4�;4;:.. 4, , v �. 4.f+.4 ..hh,�\A.4'`'4':•. }.:.}1^S+� h •.''''�' ., {•.�v��:ih.}v.',.. ,�,.:\ +44 4 ^.v}.v :v v•4,;•�}.+ ^•4v' ,, ..T. ...,h,. ++..}:,:..t• ,n.n\.:} •..,+i,n:•.1 •.v:h.. ^....:.,v}.:n.•}....., , ..., •T. ..,. •.,... ,,,}, l . 4 +.h}v.n..k .. h 4,^ t• •t•.t,4} ,r,.:};k�,. a. a}:..• ::z,.x.,,x c•.: • ,:c+,4.z,.}.: .o acf'n4.F.T,.::•�„a0.?.n.:•:.,.:::,:`a,•..4., � ..44 ,•.k � 11��''�a„.�\�..::\<+":x.„. •.a\K4>'.4�•.z,'r�z}'4�:s-'«^.^.• •}�;}.}t•<�>^: f n.�}.: �4�. ...,^+}• ....,..,. .4,T.••}.,.. , ..,\v,. }•. •:,.t.,,.^ ,4:..:...,.^...., .:n. 'L•4..'i:�},:..:, .•+:.t :0•: >.•;�4...;nTT:.4 .;f..., r.?.,f'h,•? \�, 4 �C, ,�.)`,,,,a•4•`FC.�\\•.v\�'•.•?+o'..,Kt•KK: ,}r�.. ,.\�4.�., .,,.�,;,... ;.;.�. ?M�\.;+..:4 �.a�'�•,,:4,*.\„+4:., .',:•:.} .}.} ,'+`,....}2: 'f\,..�,.�4;9.S4i'.', , .t w,�, ^::4u.K;X.x.}.:::. �T}r;` :4.4'�•.,un��., .\: : k,,..,..,,,,,,`�,, .4„ .., ., „};;,�.,T.�':? .: ,.,,.47••.;.,,.,;,£,:.n\+G:::,:,��..•r:{}: :? •:+�•:+:•+,:k.:.h�•. ., ..,:}} ., 4}4:•.., f �:^4 K,+.i;.,.,4.y}., ,}..,,.; ..r., .:$`>y:.. ••}\\ :�4,V c:•:: 4..,,,;,; h 3�.,+...<,\ .;,4...; :;;�$.:4•A,h.#4,,.•£.:i:'i,ii y+,:•}:.;i?•.`,,<,. ,A:?:.:::::::) \, i $fit,4:,,. ,:i.}\.t._:1:C':xt1;; : A'v,^"},;4..t,g. . •.. :,,e,::: 4?•,?,}nfi m..::•:•+f• , r• „$ .;^, },:,,,,."'',}::.i?,.a•+,+?,.,n;,.•:?;,.. ..,. v.,iy} ,•,'4„ •..0. 4,:.. •,T. .\: +..} •;�!�Ri!)f:rte..` �eRi :.. '..�` .�.4}. .'.t` ..}... L S".K ..,h xh. ,:v:.:}. 4:+h., \:•..v }\k'^`.�4�•y}:+:.�Fjj ::K�:�y(,n.,.,n•�.::,,.. .:.v..,. ..�T ia.=�u.3.:4.. ..*! ..,..\:•T�;b•,v,:.', 4 ?,..... 4•. . viv....h...,x.....,:.tti...4..LK,:..,t,•rS.x.x.,...:.�,:4�v:,:....:.+'s}44�iv.\�4.aZh� .n:.,\n4Z�..�� ' +'•4',�x•..,.[r..v.:..n..ni.}:�•:iv1•+.T iii...TT..h•:;ti:.•v}};{..}:}hC.}.:v:n�4,�,F'+:• •:::T:,4.v4 :h\.`�•:.:.}�•.,..4�.,'•�'• -.:a:}T^• +.�:.\T ,..�w.,.+'�nf�„ .,fi;� ., .:.,.. : � r„ �.,. ..}...�.... ...+..:........:,,....\? i,.,L?.,,., nAvP,::..:.h.. 1.444...Ti^.A'iM?x�,n♦ Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of SIgnificance After . Mitigation r' 1. AESTHETICS I The project site has been previously 1. The Development Services Department shall review and approve the project's landscape plans, Mitigated to a level . - P�j Pr Y oP P PPr Proj �P developed and is located within an prior to issuance of building permits. ' of insignificance ., urban area. The most visually sensitive land uses in the project vicinity are the ' 2. All site plans and architectural building elevations shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for existing multi-family residences located review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's along Baldwin Avenue and'West Architectural Design Review Process. Huntington Drive. However,the bulk and height of the existing mall is partially buffered from adjacent uses by 3. The parking structure(s)shall be architecturally compatible with the mall architecture. existing landscaping,grade differentials, . and the distance from the residences to the mall structures. 4. The proposed restaurant pads located along Baldwin Avenue shall be limited to a maximum height of two(2)stories or 30 feet. 2. AIR QUALITY - Air quality impacts during construction `. 1. The proposed project shall'include suppression measures for fugitive dust and those associated with ' 'Mitigated to a level were shown to be well below significant construction equipment in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and other AQMD requirements. ` of insignificance threshold levels. Any increase in air . V Prior to the issuance of grading permits the project applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control pollution in a non-attainment area, plan to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The fugitive dust control - however,should be considered as an plan shall require the construction contractor to implement measures.which may include,but not be adverse impact and reduced to the extent : V limited to,the following: ' reasonable and feasible. Emissions from construction activities should therefore . a. Using adequate water for dust control(preferably using reclaimed water). be minimized where possible. b. Operating street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing . construction materials. . 1 - - Ij • I Westfield•Slioppingtown Expansion EIR 1-13 , . City of Arcadia 'j • '.'•:fib ::.;5?}2;: A.:.};r;�;}•• '{•:.: r.. .. ...;,.xv;:•v':i•}:';?xvir:{..v... r:•w;;•. w. nA:.}.4:}r..•:.v.:....�..:. r..;:•.}:bt{:•Y{•}}?}'.};.:' w.v:.:;..:;......n,, '4 w;•.:.:v ?5;:;•n:..v:::::::^}'}�'�^kv:?irk}:;:{;:�Lj<?P: .::}::v'�vv^:::,.}?:iT .•$7:�' .. v. ......... ... :.v}:}:.:� ,. : •::..........v?:•i:.}}}•...4... .}..\ ..r:nn......:hY. .. n,.. .: ......... .n: tiff!,ti•lti}{:{}:;}:?;:?;}::•:r;:?iG}::•n. ..ni4r` ,.,SV....... ......... \ 4.... .. �C. ..... .....n...,.. ...... .... .. ....{....:::..... ........:...........:.:....x..v..:.n...n.::•.i:::::..:::....\... vk•..{•:.n::.:n.n•x' ...\,i� ::rn .....,.. 4 .. .:C..:44h ..,v....,............... 1..:.............. ..r....r...........n....n..,Yv...,;. .. \n..4.......n.\.................:.:: ..}•.. Y.nw::7::?•r �. �'i�.. r�r:,,....n1 ...,...�. ...hx. ...� .. ...n..\ 4 .{.. ... ..........r.n•....n.,•}::.:v,:nv::.••,4•.v`:.v;.v??w:::: rF: 4 f.... ..: \...n.n..........+C... �:... .... .. 4 4, .:.n....n........ , ... ....4................. •T.4,C:v Yrr'•T >vk{i .}: ... .. .nr .:,...........:..... .r.,•:n:•.,•xx•.v:xw:•v\.\+,:••:•::?::.::nr.":i{iv:•:?•T:•:O7i::...,..\.:t�'nr ..... .......v.:..:..::.:::::::....:•: ., ..,4.: ... ..:.:...v..r.......,..... .........��Y...#.•.. :.v. ..,.. .,.......... ...:. ..4...v... :;:ti4v'.tn}: ..rn....v................:........r.............:.. .r..........rx..m .,...n:�.,,n.n..}... .:..}. : � ......n..r....•.nn:..... .................................. . ......:........ ....v........,.....:... n.... :....4•:?::.v•:nri:•}n,:v::::?r:{•:i?•}7}•.}..,.. nn8.v:v::}:,i\:i:v.A•;:?. .............................}.......:4,. ...,.4:..f•.�......:...n.. .:{A4.8 n.{............:....rv.....r:............. .......n.:.......x :?jr. vvTf•i}'{•:•.. ,...r... ....,.....r:.?v.r?,::.: :•;a{•::: •::::}.•::r•n\}.{.r:::• .:...... :.:}nw::::.::nr;.....n v? ..:v.. ...}:.v:n...Sr+Tn.r:.• r....... .. ..J. Y•:::::. �.:........... .................r.........r..n.•:r......{ ... .v. .., ., :...;.. ......,. .,.v � ..... .. �•:k?wnw;:nw::n•:::•\•::8 v:$::>�: }v ?:ti: ........k:...n.....n v.......,}.... : :. .. .:. ..:..{.... is:: ... ,. t ..::� :•:vv.J.r.},.. ..r4.^•}}\•:•i}}:S:{•...... ::•::x::;l•.},::.}:,':.:{.,'ti i;vn r, :a:v:{. t� �.::. 4Li: �4� • • • • .......4?.................r......:...................:...,.:.....,.....r.r................:...t....................._:.::.:.:..:.:..:....?1T...:... ...........,...... ...,r.., .,............:............. ... ...r. .............,.. :.::::::::::.>,t.}:::::}:::::::n.:::::.:.., .�.::::>:}.ti............,...........v.. Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures • Level of Significance After • Mitigation c. Covering trucks or wetting down loads of any dirt hauled to or from the project site. • • d. Performing low-NOx emissions tune-ups on on-site equipment operating on-site for more than 60 days. • e. Requiring on-site contractors to operate a congestion relief program including: • • Rideshare incentives for construction personnel .Lane closures limited to non-peak traffic hours Receipt of construction-materials scheduled for.:non-peak traffic periods-where possible . f The-proposed project will generate 2. - The project applicant shall encourage future visitors of the project to utilize alternative forms of Significant approximately 16,079 vehicle trips per • transportation through incorporation of the following measures: unavoidable adverse :day at buildout. In addition,project impact. implementation will require a. Provide preferential parking spaces for employee carpools and vanpools. 'consumption of electricity and natural gas producing non-point source b. • Provide on-site bus shelters as determined necessary by the Development Services Director remissions. The resulting emissions are and provide a well-lighted,safe path to the mall entrances. The design of the new shelters in exceedance of the SCAQMD shall be compatible with the design of the mall and shall be subject to the review and approval signficance thresholds for CO,ROG, of the Development Services Director. and NOx. • c. Work with the City of Arcadia to implement a public outreach program which promotes alternative methods of transportation through information kiosks located in the mall. • 1 • • • 3 cc .. Westficld`Shoppingtown Expansion EIR 1-14 City Of Arcadia � . (Ii •}n••. •.. n..4:•:v..:.•:.v•}:•::n•.:vx, .,..}',"+'S:. .. .. ..+ .S. t 1..}k:x;.SVti'}�'}27'• :iQkkT v:ti:^:� '{;J•i2:{:. \k.y�;:r n�.:tiJ h tiY..}•.} y:.vk:. .. n. :.. .. •::.vk•' .... rivi'+ :::xk•.ti,.. +k'•<:..v..::v.ti:2•:•:,t++.L•T}:,} .. :, .. .•.}; ..4. .\} .. •k.. }' T,.. v\.. •4., .3. .}i4.n...£. xY}l. {yi i' v 4..r:n ^�h.. v •., :.. yy,, .J:• 1 (( 1d.•},•::,:.,...}:.:::. .•,;,\k,•,v.}.:. ...i..4.. ...i,,..,..`.'4 .'r 3 .},w,�:n,••, {,•. 'v•w.Y�•'.'{..4vv,:v.+.v., h5,3• +•4 } .'t \z,?... fC• n..k.., ?:3•f:} 4. �1 {•\TC}:,, :+2 :.{:,:.�h.. ..1 1 {v:.: T.. ,t. .£•, ..}.. 4 .•}::\', Wit, 4��i}}22�'�v •'v:2 r,{C. �•.v:'}ih ,::\•. ..,,:•n, :43.�:..., \4., .::?:,{.\•,hh..n w;�n Yv ,... ^•4'r+••.......x�.. :r...4 {.'•k v... ..v,•}.i ..v.... :} .A\•:r.,.:. •:}:.. 44•}•4,..w ,O\•r}?: X22 }.... W.i:n,{.i.}:i:,•.h r}},:Y.^:{h .\.S,n ,t,••.�:i.�. .}k\•�:.:t.l.^�} \... ..11`,:.. .n4}....,..,.. ..4,,tn..,.: �:f .n.{ r.. }.... •:.a•.14, .:,\T?'!•4. ...4... .:� ,�+.:...�:•.,••w ..♦+:::,, .+.,+.. }..r.•:. •.. .., t....�r i••:x.•'•4v.... �.•.4 v•.v:•::v..1 , v.•.v,\.?:: ....... .... •:�•n•:\,..... v. x ..n'�...r v ,.,.x..,n {..n.. ...... •.••.,p.•:. ,�.:t ••'•k•..t '2{3••, 'r,•}{ 4.. .,� :+ \. .. {.n.,},..v .. .v....., v ,,. :,\kt?..v.. ...+ .f..:....,, ...,:,..y41.......v1:.n v\ ,n•.... ...i[ .1 ..v,...�t4 .:h '•tit 4t.n 2v:3:.1..5 t?;2}•.•v 4+ :�'•},\..:,4. V,,::�v.v3 .4.,. C ...'T? h 3�..�:.t 4�. {h ..\ \.,..?.... ,1 ..T�.,. „h••:. .\....: �.v:.4:�,• >..... h.. �..,. `.}.;,\.. 4 •.h4c.r.:•r,:..,.. :.�. ?T.,.: ,.1,•.. .�1 •�,. .•X•:. .:\tit:...}.,..,:..:•::\ .Sk ,:•TS �: :•x{., :•1 •:.4•:}:,...:. .:n`.• ,'v :•+.}. .i 1.t :ry •,1`v.}.v.:4Yh rt..,... tnkt•\vvnt'•xt.+n {„,.\i'•v.••�r. ,1�..:.:. ..S .,.,�,,. t. \•:.+.:..,.:...},:i{;• .,..:1.•.,:n:•,.. , .,......,t:i•.k. ......}v,•.,•nt.\ '••::..k,•,v.••.,4..t.....t.,.,t.,,,v•::•..:: ,S'+{>:S .Yn ,>.•.'•tz t. \ .. .�: +T.. .1}..., ... ..n n .}..r....�t.,...��.... .. .. 4x �...,. 4 v%,....... 1v. ..�. :..h, ..{$•,. : :•h\4lt .:v 1,hCv •}?1t+ ,�.,v4K h. .v4 n1 2.1 �4. }. ..{r � ,�.., ,4 v•:�.• r ..4.r?vv�....43. ..v�..G{?'i{S•:k:.t.T.:2•:•::v}y3:v?3:+}S}••ti'�3�•�:::•`..••:,:::}y:.... vn24,4.t v.v•:1t,�,.�.{�}}}:}..x�i 1\Xv: •t �'" .v��}.,\4\1.n1},. 4vt(p��.} :.N {.1 .t :*i}i•' x•?. ".;14 �{>• r4.{t � r.� ��yQ+ t�... ...4.\ '.1.,•T.:• 4.:y 4••r4 ..4•.}.: �:n�v4v y� Yh },�, �µ�v+�ti�('��' f 4.v •��v'�C"i'i•'v�i}}2S,i4•:.,�.?�.;.;ruts;{::•;:}'}2,u•k.+}.4v.:v.�'�c... \:•'.�x.3X.��,`,:..a:4{,: �;;L.}:;;+•�•:•x\�•.,,:•�, 1.4• :,{.\ �:.3:::::.:tih:;.},,:': ,.,f,• •;.T+�{k�7 :.5.,,:.,t,•.:..::}}'\..:{r,.,,.. t x .l'., ..J':, w ,.J.�4C.:.. ,,.•.E•`•+�::f•��. ::E..... :. : t`X, ... .:�1!!?V►;•i�%:`•t. +2}{a+;;:;:•:3 { ,t 1,•+: ,:•�vvJ•i\':• .v�...4� �.4..• ...., .V..T .:.... n:Si"....�C.v •�?\ .h,..v. v..• >..r}W::::4.r� 1'+•:i•:•:n3.� 4�. �:...... .,.\.1..?•t;;}tyr v :t:, :�:gz.}.•�:n,:.r yx.:.£..,.::�wh,+.,•;•::n�...t..,i.a....���.c�:'....'.44"k•..r.:{::;•:{,•?:::r �:n..,:....A.......:n..,..t.}�:•:.,{tth..,.:..,.:�....t.....�.,.....,..�t.....,..:T:•}:�.....................,ht.:.~:,.....,.�4Sth.,,\.t�e:..,.,-........,:.�.34z��.1•.•U h;,.,.....n.t.n 1 m.:n:?3'ti<,:a..:+4'`t'���•S:A�}{2{c}. Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation, 3 . GEOLOGY/SO/LS Project related grading will be limited to 1. All grading operations will be conducted in conformance with the applicable City of Arcadia Mitigated to a level excavation of paving and soils to create Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code(for seismic criteria). of insignificance. fmished building pads. The proposed expansion will require minor excavation and recompaction of on-site soils in - order to construct new buildings and the parking structures. The proposed project would expose people and • property to ground shaking hazards•from • local:and regional faults;if a large earthquake occurred on any of the faults • identified as hazardous to the City of - Arcadia. • 2: The grading tling land foundation plans includin g"fundation'loads�.shall reviewed :regsteied . -., I :Fzirj Soils Engineer. • • • • CO • Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion E!R 1-15 City of Arcadia iI ii is ' II I:. it •:: .,-v::.•- -:r:•:..:::...:,,••:::•.::••::••:::vv••:.. •:::-.,:•::-::::::n•::::,::•:•:•:•:n•:::.v{{r,s.:::.}::.v:{:::n..}•.v: :::n•::},}:.:Sv:,-:.v.}}r�..;..v.:.}•.y:;:•:.,-::::r3•::{ .}.. •sss'i%}:�a::v:}x... Ss; : ... ... ..... ... ..,,. ...... ...kr.,.........:...........n....::.,..,, ,......, .. ..n. ..t,...,.. , .:4....fi:^.�:k�;:;Si:}k:tSS:k�:}}}}:::}�}:�•}kk:<:k�:;•Y:�{:ti:}}:{::;5i:�"..: ,a...... ..:s.} :};'r .::..,.,. ...}.{;•:n,....,.....{,.:s. .. .k'..f. a..,...:.,..,f..:....,...:...:.r .:....:...,...,....... ..,...., n...s:::.,•s:•::........•r.?S::r•:n•::., ...................r:.... ...n..,......... :.\. . .....v ..... .....x......n.....\..,...:n,., ,x..........., ...........r n....... ...........}44,...n. .. .. ..........v. ... }.::}::• .,,v: .•.3:3. kr.: . , . .n:.,+•:k•`\+k44+. ..- ..r.,3..n... ...n. ,...n..1. .r....,..... r.......r.. . .. .n..{..3........\. ...v.......n...,..,... .. ....... .::...::v.,::•}.,{..,,M1t..;....:vn.... ..}h w:.w:::}.,•n .. . .:\ ..\., k:,i,4tx.. ..Y... :', ,.,,....,....,.,....,.C...�... ...,,,.,....,,,.,...n...�.tx ..,•....,...,............x,........,....k.,....., , ....f. ,r,....,..:.........,f .,:..,..}rn•.�:ar......... .4:•:n.,:...,•r,....\•:....:. ..�':ik:R:;k, +c •. .44•}.+•:. ..i :r... ..,•n,...�}. . :..,..:r.,.,........4:....•:1n..n.. ...................::.:..., ..;,,,..;.;..,. it .}.. :4. \..::}:.,4n, ..`,•+.v:r ,3.\�k`v:'{.}:}xx v. ..v... v.:.n..n.• .. .,.. n.....::....}w,:..:•., .........}.::. .:.:......,.x,.....4 ...:.n;.. , n'•. ?f•:v}}:,},}•..'•:{S:i•:tiK;,.. r.:},;,.•,..�..,..4^la•:•;};:;..:.... .. .:v :... v....4.t..v... ..4v.••r.•.n. ••:•.•...n?•:w.,..•.. ..:.::::.:...::•.:.: :x:v.,.: .}:•.t.,{'•:n,T. .... ,::.. .k. n4 x...r ::�:\,�.... ..x.. : :.n :..,....v...x......,,..,.... r ...n.\,.........:..,..,...,n.....v. ......:.....n.}:w:::::4i'ti-:•:vvn,{}:.{ .1�4�.:�A<:?•.v`.•:.,w::t,:..n.nv::::.,•.v•.i3?:;}::k,v:•:.t•:•:::^.,.�:.:..:,{.,;.;.;.,..;.,i:}:h: -4•. .44•:•::3}:.:.:n ...}:.vnr}/••::::y.`,}}� ..4. .•.. ::..v..�.,,,..\v4,..... ....... ......,,x.,.............,n..,n..r.....,......,.....{..,............4...,.,....r.�.. .. ..... ..,...... ....... ..x.� ..?a,.}x.., \.,..,:n....... ..0...v..4.\x•.. ..\.. .n4..$�. .....,. ,.,....,r4,..,...n k,....,.......n..•.........,...n.....,.n.,...n. .......:.....n..,.....,4.,.........,...4...,4..•:....�•..n., rn......v::.v::•vv.+.:+r•.+::•w.. , ....:k,.......k• r......x ............ �......,: .nn.....,..r...r......... ...n..\....:�,............................,.{. :. .....,.n4.,..xr............r ,\.. „4.3 •}•}\+:ti.}'•{.}}}4.{•:•\,w::v�::i}xv}\•:.v n:•:: '.v'.}{r•} •.vh n......... .,....4..\,.,..n .,... .... ,,.... ......n..v.....r .... .. ....,.,.. ., ..n4 ...... .}.\•::^• .3�}"• ..{,... .5...r :nR3'{• -.r..:::v../v,}:\..x.A..a..,.\.p:::}�:..�:.,...�::}v}:•.3:n :. ... n .. .. .... j� t/{•:rka:ti: ,;ki'' 3.{ik?}?, .,,, .v.n......n............. ...... .,..,,, ...,.,.....��.�3p.�.� ..#� <?.�4.��.. ....... .. l.. ..[F�?3$1k. }� ...:�11tt.��?.��<!�..�:. ;�. :�> �i;: ..�[[}nia�.., :•} } ....a ................... ...........v..n.\%4...n...n......5?*.�'^*�..........�....v .... .. k ..../jj$$�1..'{,.n.............'!� ..... is T., .. i{�$�� ..t.•4.•�•: •:I�'4-T:ti�+•S:�k{•: .•.SV:nS.:•ii.n.{k•} }�J•} ik::!,L 1. ....,.v.................., .\......\�... ...4.... ....n....,.....�.:..\.n..,.......n'...v�...,....,..........:4.n............,................v.., .k,v:}v:... ?SFv.,,.:::nv::::n„v::.r...... r ,. ...3 r�f'CS': ....:.n... .......k...k4,..�,.........,...4.v.., ....\.,,......,....,....,.,.........,..............1.:..............n.................n......,......1.n.......4"�.,{.,,....v.....x,........................x..........rr.....,..C•.,•}:w:}.'vv....n...,.�,..,...::v::::•...vvv:?v.vna::}nx,v:.3::4.,.'�. Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation i 4. LAND USE/PLANNING 1. The proposed project shall be designed in accordance with all relevant development standards and regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance,City Council Ordinance 1425 and Resolution 4185, as amended. • i 5. NOISE Construction activities,especially heavy 1.=:.Construction:activities are prohibited between the hours of.7 p.m.and 7.a.m.Monday through , Mitigated to a level equipment,will create short-term noise Saturday. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays,unless authorized by the Building of insignificance increases near various individual project Official. sites. Upon completion,vehicular traffic on areawide streets will incrementally increase noise levels,although these increase are not considered significant. • o Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR 1-16 . City of Arcadia • - - - r xvv,+,' r.vh.' ...Ya:St•'Stn:k'Y{+'?+:O+:t•}. ....},.rY ..n {... .\........ ...r .:. ....v...4.:h.r n ...: ' ........\....,\..k,.\.... .. .h .k.!Jhk.t... .}. ,t 3. .:.:.,. ..3Y.,,,....,..,..,.., : .:r. ... ...}}:, ... a. hi•}•:t.;.w y:.:a•:.;.}•.}Y•...;.., . .:.:.....,}. ..n .�..\C:. :n:.. ...:. .v..r/..3. ,, t .. ,„, .x.n ...:.., .... ,.f. .,. .:• .....Y,h..: ::.., :..:. .. .'avf•a•::.:,+'- :+:aa}>-L'•:a:�::.';'r' :}:n.:•-},i?..;,,... kv ,k n\ h,.�l Sv} .{v. .MY+. v ..k:.kv..n4- .\.. ,\. ..,�vv .R. r.:1..J}.vkn +'; Y..:n.1.�'- �•"�i'- .,\ .:\.�'....�}: ..a+.:r ri�Y.`4+'t{•}:}}:.,....;�;;,. h8T.4. ..v. .h h•4..X: ;* ..n... }n. .\4 ?kta}\ {• \,. \ n\:.+. ..Y•.vn + i .•{r {•Sv:Y.h,t K:•.. '{h. m,.. v JJ .;h...... Nr. .1kv..,,nn F. :i::\.h Yvv+'}+:+h;�M YL:xv\\..n:•..v v.4.,:,:•}\.....���+•}\,..�\,.v\+•\0 SY{k 4•+ v+h•v•. �C, k v h h h A^};a.",,+ „ih'i: .;,+. ..�•r..:,�k•$ ......x 4 n...:h :av:::.�a:::•v.x.h '4 4.\\....� ......vt k h.... , 'v.h �;Jk•." f� r .,Q,x v�vv ���>:j1 }.:ax}i}+ J.: .,}... v:•.... .�...}.,.. :. � .n :... Y.n....\ ; h.n. , �.h :)..::.:. :..nv.,.v.••...� .v.. �\ •. .;:t'ha-} .�\l\.n Ya tit v -v�h•.a+:4$' ,Q•v}v:?;ai.'•;:}a,�;:n:?.... }.. ..a{'•',•.\.. .w.::•..,\ ..Av nv \ ?: :v Y'.:.•.x:f.: �h•+e;..,...C..hv.:.\r. ti ..?,: .�+: ?.{;••,,,::::::\ia;R}';,a.. ..a'T`;�• x.:}n,T. k,.:... :.k:. :.v k�v:}}::•�.. .�•.• .,.�T , �v• , Y. 'iv•. .5,. v � .}.•: n::L••n ,n{„5.:,�. .a.;, •:hv,;;..•;}.,}:•i}:•T•+.... .T. ;;{... ,.v4,•,.•;,n..., ::h• ..�.�•..\-+:a:'Yq +h .:'•}.v,.,.:...• { ', � �v ,v+.�tiY. }:w,......,,.h......,.:.::•:•.,•..•G:..;...}.,.. :.:•{,,. M{.,.:k:"}+ ..r ,..., ,,.,..}:.•:?..:}..•,,....\•}:,•4vv�Th•::}:+:•:i. .i�.rn ;\•'rv.''+...+. ,..6 ,h T" :l;•:: .L•• `'`•:S4•.\ ,•k+::..... •'.. ,,. }.�.. •\..: .,rk;. , , . :. h n t..&.....,,, .... ...... ...... ....... .t. ... , .,,..w na\ `++, ':+a>•`•}:,• L 4,...: +'u..,r:4C''T..:., ..,.....v :. .. .;.v. .\n.h. v , .. ; ..,. :,,h•. :a.vv.n..h ...... .,.....: ,:•::..:wr .,.....:.,.}.:•:;rkya :;.f Jnk} }}X•:,\�•a'k.'::\.:.:}.:'7„k,•.,••.k.. .a.. Y•}:•x�}••}:.xv�..T.{..,{f.Ti :..•,'�kh`:;;i,kG.}. r,.x•:n v? w.,v\::;...h ,.{•,::n:• ,, n;v..,,.. '{ :: ....T.., L.}ay.;}. $...vtt?:v..,n.; v\.n:vv ;...f:+; '\:'•; 4;..:..;.;,4: 4 v M•vY;�v, ,\\{:.an4j;•'}+:+r.hi•. a:.:.�:;v*v\$�...;Jb;}.;..}}:a':}:+:ah+.:•:+Yi}::t�,u:}7k, .k ► v ::..+. :::9;�? k:};:k: v:•a.w:.y}Tn .s,.;:..n, . : .., ,:v,v. ..•,:..,•,?.{;:'t;:. •k•.,+ :•.v.�;+:+..��J}..++++ ,�,,rr�,}� {�V�� :iit AppYY ::;;. ,.AI..::.„•:::•}.i+.:;.,.;.;,:•.,::h•:.•::}gig:::::Z r•:•: :..*:•. .\`•''`„\'....;.c a'•:tt•:t:{rt•.\4:+ r:.M1'+.? R... 44�:'' 4 !R4. a,$ :£. .aY ..,,..v..`{t, ..h i+•.. .,+..v. Mh:•.v. }.. v,\:.,p.:v.h.}.. • + k••. .v. ....;. • ,�':vi• ': ... :...;..:: vxT'+:J'.• ..: ....•.ii„T :!.57.1,•W} ikTMTk.., �:, �J*;{,,�+��! 4!: ..F. ,�\h\,�{•:n\�+'{\kn.v.i,t.v ..%:..: h. •4 ,.a ..4'J:.,y h:,:. .....,:. \,.v..v. ,......M,�v.�.....,v.. � ...+\. .:�.....:n..� �n �....v. ...v kpW��.....,:.�yv�\ n\ `�.y�{ •.�..�yL�'C*^TTi�+ j� .\\ �..2 k,•v +1 k �:�. ...:th:.\.�F r-C �'"T' v '.\}.v..,'°.;,',• v x �}v �. 7'�!¢.+T::. v}.\.. vr. .. � )} : .,. xx:. :•.. ...,.}.,......}..t....:......,..hi, n...::.....v...h,{...........v....r......,...:..:.....,..n..:...:.,r...�:,w.....:...::..,t•.•::..;r.. va:\.,:.rh\a...:oth•E..:a:•:,?f•:::....xtttaa,...::Yf� \•rJ;:Yo:>:c}:d}:{...Y..•'{i:}?.:v:::f..:....}: Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of Significance After Mitigation 6. PUBLIC SERVICES FIRE SERVICES Implementation of this project will 1. The project applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Arcadia codes,ordinances,and Mitigated to a level • result in increased fire department calls standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures,relating to water of insignificance for service. This will include increased improvement plans,fire hydrants,automatic fire extinguishing systems,fire flow,fire access, station and equipment maintenance, access gates,combustible construction,water availability,fire sprinkler system,etc. training,fire prevention inspection,as well as emergency response. • POLICE SERVICES Implementation of this project may 1. The parking structure shall be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, Mitigated to a level require the addition of some sworn and lighting and ingress/egress to the structure. . of insignificance. non sworn personnel. 2. A-security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Arcadia Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the parking structure(s). • • Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR 1-17 City of Arcadia . ii '` • I .. .. .. ...... .... ..... ..... .... ... .... .. ....... ........:::,. :,:..;..:•::.n.•y.,•:.•::n...•:,:•:•::.••::•:,.:......,•::::,•:•::::•-:::•:•:::,.:..::::::. ..:.v::,::i;•:?•r+rrrr:•r••rn.�:`:t•v:••? vv,.+. .v..::' :. ,.nn.nv n. n ... .. n.n. :..:.. , v....v.... n tr.hn.:.v. v.::•.... .nv..U..nry nvvn.. ...,•n:••v•• v :�.> .4: vx :}.:`y... ... .42 \ ...}r.. .n,.. }r r... :,..,v , ..vv 4.., ,rr ,+....::.•.v?J:;:iC:':tiyiJ�tiA;'?.`:r^Snh..y`;Cv' J..; li .. ,,.,t..r5. :fi 4 ..0 .w ,.r.. ....'4• n...ti.......... .. .... .. ,nr•r:::::�•.:.:..:;,.:..:...::.a. '�C•',`•. •..^xi?•: 4r•:+�w:.vnw:......;}yy 4.;;.;'••::;':`?:-..,t:`r�••;'fit?:`•-:}-:+:.••::,,,...�:•:r.S ::.2 +: \4 .: x: "4„•5..�,: ,.. .:.,.. 2... ,.. : ;,•x'C..., J, ...:,.}?:�, ,.,,,..:},i•.c...,.,:SS.�\:,.:..} .y.,h..,};.:}.:.:�;.:,, :;.,},,.4,,:r•'•:n•�y. •�•., 'm)� .x .:.+....\.. h :..�,. n�:...>. ,,9M ,`r:i, $ wk::::....,,v...V:9. V ...... ..4,. .h.` .5.. 4 ,v:..• \Q ...V x 4 4m.4..:V4.,v}v r..., sT ,.:Zv.nv.:C-. ,,:{iv.\ ..}.::}} .n?, •/,:::,%h :-:it, .':t•, s:C' ;C �. ,rf:r• ,.�. rh,,.t;,a• V4 4.. .x..}...... }...~. rrh:, -2•hr••.. :'. •..,:•.t•':: ;<;. .:y ::4•:Y. t•. .. •?:, .C�.,•:•:}.,•::.a•:.i,•.,.,.. •.. :n:..a••.•: •:?.:.,,.}:... -. k,+: .:. ? h. .:fY•:. .:\:r :nk;v :?;:;•. ..,', ,.t 4. Y k. ••Y:• r•y\r.+.+5d.' �: S.: )v :vh+5. wC�:�,:•�''{?; v`M 4•:Vh i9,• 4. ,�n 1 .�.�•.v, .'ir.•}r•n S;•+,>�`i \ .4`v' ../."n'," .v.'�M % + •4.,, : ..:..:•::.. •. ... �...y,{q.}n;..�•..n..`v.:`v$:..v... .: •vr' '' .. f'h"'' k. , ?C. .�.`,?vn.JrFit• 4. �.. ••} : :•\'ri.. iCE. r::i?t�}}'�:?vr}�':•J •v- , .:tv4:q-.x •:••:•.,+\•:^::i{.?,...., .. .,:9,•:••:�V4: ..... .,..::.: ... , 4 �` �,`v..... '.;:iw.. 9 n•`r ... •`•L•y:5r.\` :�;¢,::{:wv`:• ,ii•.a,:y+.:\`.i if`X•.,. CV, } \ h ..i`\.. SS.{ v..{... >..w.. 1,.n h ..,`y0.•... ..:5 y. ,•\v^:n •.`+4n: .i}•'"}•'•`F•:::•:J:'• :vr:ri:•t,..h ni,..r..\... ...'4. �I , 4 4 4 v\:.4.�4V-J14:.v 9: •.n...:•.,hi{\...A.:vv.{•V.'•n ,,:}.A ..Vv:v:.'• :?\....1$•.n.. �r.\. .::.,w\.,n:?: .4• 4:•.}„+.?^Ci• v... .. ,90.1 v:.v.i•{. .�•\v•:n •:m.•.�"h1\ {•.: n vv.n ...\,•.>.v.. . '4•. �:. 4:r.4S�?•\V\:• ti,v••;•y:2:,4,...}.:v: :•�•:r:.:vv:•:•�v:.+�v,• :,C\, .v.r. .r4v tv:::\v;.?.•,.'}.n.: .\v \\,..n: �.,t vV. :,..\..4v ..�:.4n44y}^.}?},\??;••.,;4.y.},}..}::4"4:}!`v?:,• ... , •�`•:: :;?..r :,•:.*`4•.•:..,�; :t. �•. ,.Sh'tk{4:•{:'..ti ;,.tJo. l ., v .. }'.4: ::}:.r...... ].t:`•.. �: '�x:,\}�r:�. Y" , ::4••:. .}.. .\, t }?'tix •'•::•::•:•.• •:• .V?:•x:n :-.:: `.K:::::*:iv"4yv : n: •}R::\+?,.. §.+,.. ., 4...:v:$..'t+..,\+ ?a :.1: $t � .L •rL.{;nS4 b\....:::d:r::'.b:•?`;:,:w..+'`:..v.. 34••., }i .... ,•;,}n\�•i h: �h;\.;y4'••.2;C:•:•.`.�}•:.���1r•'4...:v ''.',Y�:- '..}. tt.. .��k�'}�:4.5� ..?Ql.!I. �v..�:.:i ii''��R42. ''yy,,���"` .4:Ta+RBR���kr^•ra ,•4�'.};�.•v•: �::vn��1:9}4$::`vrY.:v;N,. ...v..:v..r.. .......,..:...�.. .,., h v..v,v:vv:ti^ •}:::• i.. :...n. {,. ... }.+,•::•..•.`+ -,.n,..nn,r:�+i'+t\4:,•..n.A,{i{{:n`h4.:::^ ...... .....xb.•ri:v nvni�V::k^n>.v:i4i` k{ v:v:v:.�•.v.:,:ki,nQ•r::.v?.>�:?>v4,:vxv:rn,wv�>v :...an.........%......................n v\\}n nnhu,nhu................ ,:......,......n..........n.........:nnhx.v.vvn:vw:.v.........`n....nv Y, r...vv.................. + •y:.n... ..... • Potential Impacts Mitigation Measures Level of - Significance After • • . .- • Mitigation . 7. TRANSPORTATION The proposed project will generate • 1. The project applicant shall participate in area-wide traffic improvements by participating in the Project impacts have ' approximately 16,080 additional vehicle City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program,if adopted by the City of Arcadia. The project been mitigated to a trips upon completion. applicant shall be entitled to credit against this Fee Program for the costs of project-funded level of insignif- circulation improvements,both on-site and off-site,to the extent that such improvements provide icance. The • •circulation capacity in excess of the capacity required to serve traffic generated by the project. intersections of . • - Huntington Drive 2.- If the City of Arcadia has not adopted a Traffic Impact Fee Program by the time building permits and Rosemead -are issued for the project,the-proposed project shall-participate in the area=wide traffic . Boulevard will ' :improvements identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan,as adopted;-on a-pro-rata"fair- continue to operate • -- - • •••share"basis(i.e:,"nexus"formula)..A nexus based-formula will ensure that the project fully : _at an unacceptable - compensates for its share of the cost of improvements to roadways within or near the study area -level of service(LOS ' ' •.which-may be-impacted-by the project. -A nexus study to determine"fair-share"responsibility shall F). However,•the . . - be completed by the project applicant at the time engineering plans are initiated for the roadway Lead Agency has improvement. A nexus based formula will ensure that the project fully compensates for its share of determined that the the cost of"new'-'capacity that must be provided.at various locations. project's ' contribution-to the • significant • • cumulative.traffic impacts are"de . minimis"and thus . not significant. N - • . Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion ElR 1-18 .City of Arcadia (� - - __� C _ , , _, �`- 1 -. � ) -Y C =' - -- _ C_ ; �_ __� ;ice 1• SECTION 7 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 6197 CERTIFYING FINAL EIR RESOLUTION NO. 61N7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN EXPANSION PROJECT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project proposes construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion to the existing Westfield Shoppingtown in the City of Arcadia; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.), and the City of Arcadia's Local CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia is the lead agency for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project ("Project") as the public agency with general governmental powers; and WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency, determined that an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of Project implementation; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR was published on or about December 17, 1999, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies, organizations and individuals pursuant to. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and WHEREAS, in order to define the scope of the investigation of the EIR, the City consulted with all responsible and trustee state agencies, local organizations and interested individuals to identify concerns regarding potential impacts of the Project on the Project site; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period on the Notice of Preparation of • an EIR, the City conducted a Public Scoping Meeting on December 6, 1999 to solicit input from the community regarding issues to be addressed in the EIR; and 6197 69 1 WHEREAS, approximately 13 written comment letters were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was completed and released for public review on May II 19, 2000 and the City initiated the public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research and the Clerk's Office of Los Angeles County; and 1. WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092, the City also -,{ provided a Notice of Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested such notice in writing, and published the Notice of Completion on or about May 25 and June 1 in a newspaper of general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to approximately 53 public agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at the Arcadia City Library. and Arcadia Development Services • Department, Community Development Division; and WHEREAS, during the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies,' other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15086; and WHEREAS, during the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City. received approximately eleven (11) written comments, all of which the City responded to ti^ in the Final EIR; and -' WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of the Final.EIR to all commentors on August 23; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on.the Project; and , WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local Guidelines have been satisfied by the City, and the EIR is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been evaluated properly, focusing on broad policy alternatives and area wide mitigation measures'; and _! I 6197 70 WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially .lessen the Project's potential environmental impacts and.a range of feasible alternatives capable of • eliminating or reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City; finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II hereof; ' _ and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less than significant -:through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set 'forth herein, are described in Section III hereof; and WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less; than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section IV hereof; and WHEREAS, alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section V hereof; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Final EIR,. and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and • WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in any public hearing or any additional information submitted to the City have 'produced substantial new information requiring 6197 '. 71 recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5;, and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. At a regular meeting on September 5, 2000, the City Council determined that based on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project are 1) less than significant and do -,I not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the ,identified mitigation measures; or 3) significant and will be substantially lessened to the extent feasible by !_ C the identified mitigation measures. Section 2. Resolution regarding environmental impacts not requiring mitigation. The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Anoakia Residential Development Project are less than significant and therefore do -I not require the imposition of mitigation measures: . A. Aesthetics - Light and Glare y Lighting associated with the proposed restaurant pads adjacent to Baldwin Avenue may be visible by adjacent residents. (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.) However, existing landscaping and elevation differentials will screen this lighting. In addition, ,existing vehicular traffic and street-lighting on Baldwin Avenue will mask any additional lighting. No spillover of parking lot lighting is anticipated. Therefore, potential light and glare impacts are not considered significant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) - B. Aesthetics.-Topography - The existing topography is relatively flat due to previous grading activities necessary to construct the existing mall. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.) As a result, no significant 6197 , 72 grading is expected to be necessary to construct the Project. Therefore, no significant impacts to the existing topography are anticipated and no mitigation is required. C. Agricultural Resources The Project site and surrounding area are fully developed with urban uses. • There are no existing agricultural resources and farmlands in the City. The Project site has been and will continue to be developed, as a shopping center and adjoining parking lot. In addition, the Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses. (Draft EIR, p. 9-1.) Therefore, the Project will not result in significant impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation is required. D. Biological Resources No unique or sensitive animals are located on the Project site and therefore will not be -affected by implementation of the Project. On-site vegetation consists primarily of small ornamental - trees (throughout the parking lots) and 'landscaping materials. In addition, the Project will not affect preservation policies, conservation plans, or protected habitats. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant impacts to biological resources will occur from implementation of the Project and no mitigation is required. E. Cultural Resources The Project site is not on the Historical Places Listing in the City's General Plan, nor is it within a designated historic district. The Project-related improvements will not cause a physical change that would affect the unique ethnic cultural values of the area. Therefore, no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials None of the existing or proposed land uses associated with the Project will generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials in quantities that could pose public health hazards. No storage of explosive. or combustible materials is located on-site and there are no known natural or any other hazards known to exist on the Project site. Therefore, the hazardous materials impact to the public and/or environment is not considered significant and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) 6197 73 G. Hydrology and Water Quality The amount of impervious surfaces will not increase with implementation of the Project and, therefore, no significant impacts on water quality, groundwater discharge, drainage pattern, or long-term run-off are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 9-2.) • The Project site is not located within a 100-year floodplain. In addition, the Project ,f Applicant will be required to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and a Water Quality Control Plan in accordance with the Clean Water .Act. Therefore, no significant hydrology impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) H. Mineral Resources The Project site is not designated as, or located near, any known regionally significant mineral resources. Therefore, no significant impacts to mineral resources are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) I. Population and Housing Implementation of the Project will not involve any residential development !,__4 and therefore will not have any direct impact on regional or local population projections. (Ibid.) The Project will generate approximately 780 additional full-time jobs and 780 part-time jobs, which may indirectly increase the need for housing. However, the majority of the jobs are expected to be filled by the existing population. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project will not destroy structures that are considered affordable housing and therefore will have no impact on affordable housing units in the City, nor will the Project displace substantial numbers of.people. Therefore, no significant impacts to fir, population and housing are anticipated and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) J. Recreation The Project does not contain any components that would increase demand upon neighborhood, regional or any other recreational facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts to recreational resources are anticipated and no mitigation is )__-` required. (Ibid.) ; K. Utilities/Service Systems — Natural Gas Service The Southern California Gas Company ("SCG") currently provides naturalf gas service to the Project site via underground lines located in West Huntington Drive 6197 74 I 'i and Baldwin Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 4-136.) SCG has indicated that existing mains can serve the Project and would not create a significant impact on the environment. (Ibid.) In addition, no cumulative impacts to gas services from the Project are anticipated at this time. (Draft EIR, p. 4-137.) Therefore, no significant impacts to natural gas service are anticipated from the Project and no mitigation is required. (Ibid.) L. Utilities/Service Systems —Telephone Service Pacific Bell has existing telephone facilities within the Project vicinity and provides telephone services to the mall shops currently operating on the site. (Ibid.) To provide service to the Project, enhancement and/or extensions of existing facilities may be required. (Ibid.) However, service to the Project can be provided without any adverse impact on Pacific Bell's ability to provide telephone service in the area. (Draft EIR; p. 4-138.) In addition, Pacific Bell will be able to accommodate the needs for telephone service generated by this and other projects in the area. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant impacts to telephone services are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (Ibid.) Although no mitigation is required, the following mitigation measure will be implemented to enhance the delivery of telephone service to the Project site: 4.8.3.1. The Project Applicant shall coordinate with Pacific Bell prior .to the issuance of grading permits regarding the need for additional facilities and/or easements. (Ibid.) Section 3. Resolution.regarding Environmental Impacts mitigated to a level of less than significant. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant level are as follows: A. Aesthetics 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Project may have potentially significant impacts regarding aesthetics because current zoning would allow the Project to have a maximum of eight 6197 75 stories with a building height not to exceed 85 feet. (Draft EIR, p. 4-8.) In contrast, the existing mall is two stories, with the exception of the Macy's and Robinson's-May buildings. The Project may also have potential significant impacts to aesthetics.through limiting the existing views of the historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.) The area of greatest concern would be views of the Project site from the existing multiple family residences located along Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington _ Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-9.) The unmitigated building height could be as much as 80 feet above Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) The only other area of potential impact is the Eastside Expansion Area on the eastern portion of the site, where the Project may disrupt partial views of the racetrack grandstands for a distance of approximately 650 feet along West Huntington Drive, and full views for an additional 650 feet. (Draft EIR, p. 4-15.) 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will . reduce potential impacts to aesthetics to less than significant: 4.1.3.1.. All site plans and architectural building elevations shall be submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with the City's Architectural Design Review �L Process. (Ibid.) . . . 4:1.3.2. The Development Services Department shall review t and approve the Project's landscape plans, prior to issuance of building permits. (Draft EIR, p. 4-17.) I f 4.1.3.3. The parking structure(s) shall be architecturally, 1 • compatible with the mall architecture. (Ibid.) —' 4.1.3.4. The proposed restaurant pads located along Baldwin Avenue shall be limited to two (2) stories with a maximum height of 30 feet. (Ibid.) 3. Supporting Explanation. Implementation of the Project will not require the alteration of existing landforms • nor will it substantially alter the existing viewsheds and visual if character of the site from the surrounding areas. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) The existing commercial uses and proposed expansion are considered visually compatible (i.e., both commercial in nature) with the existing Santa Anita Racetrack located directly north and 6197 . 76 r - east of the site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-9.) In addition, the Project will not visually impact the horse stables that are located directly north of the site, nor will it impact the large parking area east of the site, since the parking area is not considered visually sensitive. (Ibid.) Regarding proposed building height, the above mitigation measures will reduce the maximum building height of the restaurant pads to two (2) stories, 30 feet maximum height. (Ibid.) Also, elevation differentials and the existing landscaping along Baldwin Avenue and the reduced building height would mitigate any potentially significant aesthetic impacts. (Ibid.) In addition, views of the existing Nordstrom building are blocked by the existing berm and associated landscaping which ranges between six and eight feet along Baldwin Avenue. Also, the pad elevation is approximately 20 feet below Baldwin Avenue, which provides additional screening. (Ibid.) . . Further, the bulk and height of the existing mall is partially buffered by the distance from the residences to the mall structures. Large arterial roadways separate Westfield Shoppingtown from adjacent multi-family residences along Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-7.) Also, no scenic vistas are currently blocked by the mall. (Ibid.) In addition, as stated in Section II of these findings, no significant impacts are expected regarding light and glare or the topography of the • • Project site. Regarding potential cumulative impacts from the Project, there are no other proposed development projects which could combine to result in cumulative impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area. As a result, cumulative aesthetic impacts are not considered significant. (Draft. EIR, p. 4-15.) With the. existing landscaping and implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potentially significant impacts to aesthetics will be reduced to less than significant. B. Geology and Soils 1. Potential Significant Impacts. • The. Project could expose people and property to ground shaking hazards from local and regional faults if a large earthquake occurred on any of the active faults identified as hazardous to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 4-41.) The most notable regional faults include the San Andreas Fault to the north and the Whittier 6197 77 ii fault to the south. (Ibid.) Also, the Raymond. Hill faults zone transverses the City from west to east. The nearby Sierra Madre Fault also influences the topography of the area. (Ibid.) Recent activity along the Sierra. Madre fault system (e.g., 1971 San Fernando and 1992 Sierra Madre earthquakes) indicates this fault system is active and is the source of potentially damaging earthquakes that could impact Arcadia and the Westfield _ Shoppingtown Mall. (Draft EIR, p. 4-38.) 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential geotechnical impacts to less than significant: 4.3.3.1. All grading operations will be conducted in b 1 conformance with the applicable City of Arcadia Grading Ordinance and the most recent version of the Uniform Building Code (for seismic criteria). (Draft EIR, p. 4-44.) 4.3.3.2. The grading and foundation plans, including '_ foundation loads, shall be reviewed by a registered Soils Engineer. The findings and recommendations of the Soils Engineer shall be compiled in a geotechnical report and 1I submitted to the City of Arcadia for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. (Ibid.) . 3. Supporting Explanation. Although earthquakes in the past 25 years have produced significant ground motion within the Project planning area, the damage occurring as a result of these earthquakes has not been as widespread in Arcadia as it has been in other areas. (Draft EIR, p. 4-42..) In addition, although moderate to high intensities of —} seismic groundshaking can be expected to occur on-site, the effects, can be mitigated by conformance with the latest Uniform. Building bode and/or recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association of . California for seismically resistive design of structures. Therefore, no significant impacts related to regional seismicity are anticipated. (Draft EIR, p. 4-43.) Additionally, no landslides are present on or near the site of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-38.) Also, there are currently no problems relating to runoff and erosion since the Project site is fully developed and will remain covered in either asphalt or building materials. (Draft EIR, p. 4-41.) Similarly, because the Project site is • 6197 . 78 already graded, disruption or displacement of on-site soil would be minimal during the construction phase of the Project. (Ibid,.) In addition, on-site soils are already compacted and covered by pavement and there is no evidence to suggest that the soils are not suitable for development. ' (Draft EIR, p. 4-43.) Also, due to past grading activities for the existing mall, the site is relatively flat and no impacts relating to 'gross slope stability are anticipated. (Ibid.) Further, the County's liquefaction hazards maps do not show the Project site as potentially liquifiable. (Draft EIR, p. 4-44.) Although the alluvial deposits underneath the Project site may be subject to differential settlement during any intense seismic shaking, such settlement is not anticipated to occur to the degree necessary to cause much damage. (Ibid.) In addition, cumulative geotechnical impacts will be reduced to less than significant as cumulative projects adhere to mitigation measures contained in site- specific geotechnical reports, building codes, and grading ordinances. Therefore, cumulative geotechnical impacts related to the Project are not considered significant. '(Ibid.) With the implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potential 'geotechnical impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant. (Ibid.) C. Land Use/Planning 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Regarding compatibility with surrounding land uses; Project implementation may increase traffic volumes and associated noise levels on roadways including Baldwin Avenue and West Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p.. 4-50.) Another potential impact may be the proposed General Plan Amendment to allow expansion of the building envelope to the site's eastern border. Under a worst-case scenario, this could allow the construction of structures within. approximately 350 feet of the nearest residential units. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) The Project includes a General Plan amendment to allow;for a 600,000 square foot expansion of the existing mall, resulting in an increase of 293,699 square feet over the existing General Plan. (Draft EIR,. p. 4-52.) Therefore, the proposed General Plan amendment exceeds the growth projections for commercial land uses in the City of Arcadia by approximately 3.8 percent. (Ibid.) As a result of the 6197 79 increased square footage, the Project exceeds the level of development assumed in the _ adopted Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP (Draft EIR, p. 4-54.) Further, the close proximity of future restaurant pads to existing residential neighborhoods may create controversy and compatibility impacts relative to noise and aesthetics. (Draft EIR, p. 4-50.) Although the northerly and southerly restaurant pads are separated from the existing residential units by approximately 340 feet and 170 feet, adjacent residents may perceive an increase in nighttime illumination, traffic, noise, and increased activity. (Draft EIR, p. 4-51.) In addition, the proposed northerly restaurant pad may not be compatible with the Santa Anita Racetrack because of the restaurant pad's close - proximity to the existing stables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) The stables have the potential to produce various odors that may impact the proposed commercial uses. (Ibid.) 2. Finding. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce —' potential impacts to land use and planning to less than significant: 4.4.3.1. The Project shall be designed in accordance with all • relevant development standards and regulations set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, City — Council Ordinance 1425 and Resolution 4185, as amended. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.) 3. Supporting Explanation: Since the proposed expansion is consistent with the existing commercial uses at the Project site, no potential land use impacts are associated with the Project.. (Draft EIR, p. 4-49.) In addition, since the existing uses and the proposed expansion consist of an enclosed mall, no significant land use impacts related to the existing parking area are anticipated. (Ibid.) Further, although the stables have potential to produce various odors that may potentially impact the proposed northerly — restaurant pad, the restaurant is likely to be enclosed and will limit potential odor related impacts. (Ibid.) . • As explained in these findings, Project-related traffic and noise impacts have been mitigated to'a level of insignificance. In addition, the projected traffic volumes are well within the roadway classifications identified in the City's Circulation 't Element. (Draft EIR, p. 4-50.) Therefore, the Project is considered environmentally L-I 6197 80 -- � I • compatible with the surrounding land uses. (Ibid.) Further, the Santa Anita Racetrack is not considered a sensitive land use and will not be significantly impacted by the Project. (Ibid.) Regarding potential impacts to: existing residences from the proposed commercial uses, an existing` 'six- to eight-foot. landscaped • berm along Baldwin Avenue will reduce any potential land use compatibility impacts. As a result no significant impacts are.anticipated. (Draft EIR,.p. 4-51.) Regarding the potential "worst-case" scenario of construction within ■ 350 feet of existing residences at the site's eastern border, these units are separated from the proposed expansion area by West Huntington Drive, an eight-lane divided highway with a landscaped median. (Ibid.) As a result, it is unlikely that adjacent residents will perceive any increases in noise, light and glare, or on-site activity. Therefore, no land use compatibility impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) The Project is consistent with all the elements of the General l Plan, with the exception of the Air Quality Element. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-51 through 4-56 ) Air quality impacts are further discussed in these findings. The Project is also consistent 1 With most of the policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") ,adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"). (Draft,,ElR, p. 4-69.) Further, the Project fully complies with or meets the intent of the majority of SCAG's ancillary/advisory policies and is consistent with SCAG's employment forecasts for the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project, along with related projects in the surrounding area, has already been anticipated and is included in the Arcadia General Plan. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project site is considered appropriate for the proposed expansion due to the commercial nature of the surrounding area to the north and east. (Ibid.) In addition, none of the cumulative projects would require the disruption or division of the physical arrangement of an existing community. As such, cumulative land use impacts are not considered .significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-70.) With the implementation of the above. mitigation measure, any potential impacts to land use and/or planning will be reduced to less than significant. • 6197 81' D. Noise 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Construction noise may be intermittently audible to nearby residences, especially toward the southwestern site corner. (Draft EIR, p. 4-80.) Construction activities may create a short-term noise nuisance for impact sources such as jackhammers or pavement breakers. (Ibid.) Vehicular noise from traffic on adjacent arterial roadways could increase the noise exposure of residents or other noise- sensitive users along site access roads. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, noise -_� impacts will be reduced to less than significant: 4.5.3.1 Construction activities are prohibited between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Saturday. (Draft EIR, p. 4-87.) - Construction is prohibited on Sundays and holidays, unless authorized by the Building Official. (Ibid.) .. Li 3. Supporting Explanation. With implementation of the above mitigation measure, construction '_f noise will be confined to the daytime hours of lesser noise sensitivity by construction permit conditions. (Draft EIR, p: 4-80.) Demolition and new construction noise will be -' largely masked by existing traffic noise and blocked by much of the existing buildings, such that temporary construction activity impacts, even during maximum noise generation, would be less than significant. (Ibid.) Off-site traffic noise will only be increased by 0.4 decibels, which is undetectable by humans. (Draft EIR, p. 4-87.) -' Consequently, traffic associated with the shopping center expansion will not perceptibly change the noise environment. (Ibid.) Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measure above, noise,impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance: (Ibid.) The maximum cumulative noise increase as a result of the Project is less than 3.0 decibels, which is not perceptible by humans. (Ibid.) Therefore, r l cumulative noise increases are not considered significant.. (Ibid.) 6197 82 . E. Public Services FIRE PROTECTION 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Project expansion of up to 600,000 square feet would increase demand on the Arcadia Fire Department for fire service resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4-89.) There would be an increase in the number of responses to the Project area that would increase the demand for existing apparatus, equipment and personnel. (Ibid.) As such, the City's costs would increase to maintain equipment and apparatus, as well as to train and equip personnel. (Ibid.) The Project may increase the demand for paramedic services due to increased human activity at the site. (Ibid.) The increased demand may require new or altered ambulance services. (Ibid.) Implementation of this Project in combination with other projects in the vicinity may result in a cumulative increase in fire department calls for service. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to fire protection services will be reduced to less than significant: 4.6.1.1. The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable City of Arcadia codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire flows,.fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, fire sprinkler system, etc. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) 3. Supporting Explanation. Paramedic response times and service are currently within the standards in the Project area and would remain so with implementation of the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-89.) Compliance with. fire protection design standards will ensure that future development within the area does not inhibit the ability of fire protection or paramedic crews to respond at optimum levels. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90). The need for additional personnel and materials will be reviewed periodically as cumulative development occurs. (Draft EIR, p. 4-90.) Implementation of the mitigation measure listed above will assist the City in meeting cumulative growth-driven demands for fire 6197 83 • i- 1 protection services and will offset any significant cumulative impacts related to this Project. (Ibid.) • POLICE PROTECTION 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Arcadia Police Department has 'indicated that policing of the parking structure may present unique difficulties with regard to personal safety and the -- safety of vehicles and property. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91.) The Project may use approximately 12 percent of the Arcadia Police Department resources. (Draft EIR, p. 4- 92.) It is likely that the department may require the addition of some personnel as a result of the Project. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. —' With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to police protection services will be reduced to less than significant: 4.6.2.1. The parking structure(s) shall be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) 4.6.2.2. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by - ' the Arcadia Police Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any structures, including the parking structure(s). (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-7.) 3. .Supporting Explanation. • Potential concerns with regard to security of the parking structure will be mitigated through the design concept of the structure. (Draft EIR, p. 4-91.) The Police Department will evaluate the security plan to determine the best methods to address and mitigate potential security issues. (Ibid.) Further, the Police Department will review final design plans once they are submitted. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) The mitigation measures listed above will reduce all potential Project-related police impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-92.) To the extent that police department resources f _ are expanded in an efficient manner in accordance with growth trends, no significant cumulative impacts related to police protection services are anticipated. (Ibid.) f 4 ii 6197 84 __J F. Transportation/Circulation 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Project is expected to generate approximately 16,080 additional vehicle trips per day. (Draft EIR, p. 4-101.) At build-out, the Project may generate 668 outbound trips and 766 inbound tips during the P.M. peak hour. (Ibid.) The Project may have a negative impact on the levels of service for the following intersections in 2002: • Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue • 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard. (Draft EIR; p. 4- 106.) Due to the contribution of growth in regional traffic and General Plan build-out, the Project may have a negative impact on the levels of service for the following intersections in 2015: • Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue • 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue • Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue • Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue • • Huntington Drive @ Baldwin Avenue • Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Sunset Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard • - • Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place • Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street • Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue. (Draft EIR; p. 4- -- 117.) In addition, cumulative development in accordance with the adopted Arcadia General Plan and-regional traffic growth may result in deficiencies to the levels of service for the following intersections by 2015: • Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue (W), (E) • 1-20 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue 6197 85 • • Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue • Driveway B @ Baldwin Avenue —. • Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue • Huntington Drive@ Baldwin Avenue • Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Sunset Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard • Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place • Huntington Drive @ Holly Avenue • Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street • Huntington Drive @ Santa Anita Avenue • Huntington Drive @ 1-210 WB Ramps • Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue • 1-210 EB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue • 1-210 WB Ramps @ Santa Anita Avenue (Draft EIR, p. 4- 124 to 4-125:) 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, traffic and circulation impacts will be reduced to less than significant: 4.7.3.1. In order to mitigate the traffic problems, there are two means by which traffic mitigations may be paid; a. The project applicant shall participate in area-wide traffic improvements by participating in the City of Arcadia Traffic Impact Fee Program, if adopted by the City of Arcadia. The project applicant shall be entitled to credit against i this Fee Program for the costs of project-funded off-site circulation improvements, to the extent that such improvements provide circulation capacity in excess of the capacity j J required to serve traffic generated by the project; or b. • If the City of Arcadia has not adopted a Traffic Impact Fee Program by the time building permits are issued for the Project, the Project shall participate in the area-wide traffic improvements identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan, as adopted, on a pro-rata "fair-share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). A 6197 86 1 nexus based formula will ensure that the Project fuliy compensates for its share of the cost of improvements to roadways within or near the study area that may be impacted by the Project. A nexus study to determine "fair-share" responsibility shall be completed by the Project Applicant at the time engineering plans are initiated for the roadway • improvement. A nexus based formula will ensure that the Project fully compensates for its share of the cost of"new" capacity that must be provided at various locations. (Ibid.) 4.7.3.2. The Project Applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the cost of engineering and construction for the following improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits within Phase 1 (up to 400,000 square feet GLA). ). If an improvement is identified in the City's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the City may require that the applicant provide the City with the cost of said improvement(s) rather than construct the improvement(s). The funding provided-shall be used to construct the improvement identified in the Transportation Master -Plan. The Project-specific improvements are as follows: a. Foothill Boulevard @ Baldwin Avenue (W) Add a separate left-turn lane on the northbound approach. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-9.) • b. 1-210 EB Ramps @ Baldwin Avenue Restripe eastbound approach for a separate left-turn land, a through-right land and an exclusive right-turn lane. (Draft EIR, p. 4-130.) • c. Huntington Drive @ Rosemead Boulevard Provide a separate right-turn lane on northbound and eastbound approach by restriping and modify the !traffic signals to accommodate the new right-turn lanes, if necessary. Detailed striping and signal plans shall be prepared and submitted to the County of Los Angeles . Department of Public Works for review and approval. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.) [NOTE: The consultant's Mitigation Monitoring •Program dated July 2000 deleted two mitigation measures. See pg. 1-19 of Draft EIR, mitigation measures "d" and "e."] • 6197 87 4.7.3.3. The Project Applicant shall be required to complete or bond for the cost of engineering, and construction for the following improvements prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy within Phase 2 (up to 600,000 square feet GLA). If an improvement included in the following list conflicts with an improvement identified in the City's adopted Transportation Master Plan, the City may require that the Applicant provide the City with the cost of the conflicting improvement rather than construct the improvement. The funding provided shall be used to construct the improvement identified in the Transportation Master Plan. The Project-specific improvements are as follows: a. Driveway A @ Baldwin Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-10.) b. Driveway C @ Baldwin Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane on the westbound approach. (Draft EIR, p. 4-130:) c. • Huntington Drive © Baldwin Avenue Add a second northbound left-turn lane and also add a separate right-turn lane on the eastbound approach. (Draft EIR, p.4-131.) d. Duarte Road @ Baldwin Avenue Add a. right-turn and a second left-turn lane on the northbound approach and a right-turn lane on the westbound approach. (Ibid.) e. Huntington Drive @ Sunset Boulevard Add a separate left-turn lane on the southbound approach. (Ibid.) [NOTE: The consultant's Mitigation Monitoring Program dated July 2000 deleted one mitigation measure. See pg. 1- 21 of Draft EIR, mitigation measure "k."] f. Huntington Drive @ Colorado Place 6197 88 Restripe westbound approach for an exclusive right-turn, • one shared through/right and two through lanes. (Ibid.) g. Huntington Drive @ Santa Clara Street Restripe northbound approach to provide for two right-turn lanes, one through lane and a left-turn lane. (Ibid.) h. Santa Clara Street @ Santa Anita Avenue Add a separate right-turn lane on the northbound approach. (Ibid.) i. Huntington Drive @ Holly Avenue Add a second southbound right-turn lane. (Mitigation Monitoring Program July 2000, p. 3-12.) 4.7.3.5. The Project Applicant's final design for any new internal circulation alterations/changes regarding the internal circulation system shall comply with the following design guidelines to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. a. The internal circulation system shall consist of a ring road, a system of perimeter roads, appropriately laid out parking aisles, landscaping and intersections and incorporate appropriate pedestrian and bicycle access/connections. (Ibid.) b. Primary circulation shall be provided by the ring road. The site circulation system shall be designed to encourage use of the ring road and discourage use of the perimeter roadways for movement from one part of the site to another. Horizontal curvature and sight distances shall be designed for at least 30 miles per hour (mph). Curve radii and sight distance requirements for the ring road shall be the same as for the major collector roads. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132). c. On-site vehicular volumes and speeds shall be controlled by the physical design of the parking lots and the perimeter 6197 89 • � I roadway in order to reduce the potential and number of serous pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. The maximum width of the perimeter roads shall not exceed 29 feet, and the minimum inside radii shall be between 30 and 50 feet. All perimeter roads shall be designed-as fire lanes so that no- stopping/no-parking rules can be enforced. (Ibid.) . l d. Landscaping shall be used for delineation of on-site circulation features and to discourage drivers from traversing - jI designated.areas. (Ibid.) e. Tee (three-way) intersections shall be used for all on-site intersections in order to minimize conflicts and simplify maneuver areas. The intersections shall be designed to the same geometric standards as the intersections of comparable classes of public streets. (Ibid.) • f. Adequate site distances shall be provided at all on-site L` intersections and on horizontal curves. Minimum speeds for sight distance determination, shall be 20 mph on parking aisles and perimeter roads, and 30 mph on the ring road. (Ibid.) ILi 3. Supporting Explanation. With implementation of the Project-specific roadway improvements �--' identified above, each of the above intersections will operate at background levels of �-7 service (as if, without the Project) or better in 2002 and 2015. (Draft EIR, p. 4-132.) -� The intersection of Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard is currently operating at an unacceptable level of service and will continue to do so with or without the Project. Li (Ibid.) All other intersections in the 2002 condition will operate at acceptable levels of service with Project-specific improvements. (Ibid.)' Therefore, Project-specific impacts -J have been mitigated to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.) Except for Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, cumulative L intersection impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through Project- specific intersection improvements. (Draft EIR, p. 4-133.) Intersection deficiencies at -� • 6197 90 J I Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard are due to cumulative background growth and not the Project. (Ibid.) The conditions at this intersection would essentially be the same. with or without the Project. (Ibid.) Therefore,.the Project's 'contribution to the significant cumulative traffic impacts are "de minimis" and thus not significant. (Ibid.) G. Utilities/Service Systems ELECTRIC SERVICE 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Southern California Edison Company ("SCE"), who will provide electricity for the Project, estimates that an additional four-megavolt amps of load may be required to serve the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4-134.) To accommodate the Project some rearrangement of SCE facilities may be required. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135.) During construction, SCE anticipates conflicts between existing electrical facilities and new construction on the site. (Ibid.) Temporary power requirements for the Project are expected to be extensive. (Ibid.)' 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to electric service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.1.1. The-Project Applicant shall coordinate with SCE prior to the issuance of grading permits to address potential conflicts between existing electrical facilities and new construction on the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. 4-135.) 3. Supporting Explanation: To reduce the Project's electrical consumption, the Project will comply with all the State Energy Insulation Standards and City of Arcadia codes. (Draft EIR, p. 4-134.) SCE has indicated its ability to serve the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 4;135.) Coordination with SCE early in the planning process to address potential conflicts will ensure a safe work environment and reliable service for SCE's existing customers. (Ibid.) Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will further reduce any identified impacts on electrical service to a level of insignificance. (Ibid.) 6197 91. _I WATER SERVICE LJ 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Westfield Shoppingtown is served by Zone 2 of the Arcadia Water System. (Draft EIR, p. 4-138.) The proposed expansion may increase demand on the water storage zone, which is currently deficient by .26 million gallons. (Draft EIR, p: 4-139.) Leaking existing detector check valves are likely to be found in the remodeling process and may need to be resolved. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to water service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.4.1. The Project Applicant shall comply with water conservation measures in accordance with AB 325. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.) -; 4.8.4.2. The project applicant shall comply with the Title.17 — Backflow Regulations. 4.8.4.3. The project applicant shall replace or repair detector check valves if leading is found. 3. Supporting Explanation., The City's Water Master Plan includes a new storage reservoir to be constructed in the next two to three years, which will accommodate current and future storage deficiencies. (Draft EIR, p. 4-139.) The area water distribution system • will provide adequate flow to the Project structures. (Ibid.) Further, according to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department, the Project is not expected to have a ._'. I ' significant impact on the City's ability to provide quality water service to the Project and the community. (Ibid.) Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures listed above will reduce all potential water impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-140.) Further, with regard to cumulative impacts, Arcadia does not anticipate any problems supplying water service to any current or future development in the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) I Li 6197. 92 • SEWER SERVICE 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County ("CSDLAC") provides regional sewer and wastewater treatment services for the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 4-140.) The wastewater flow originating from the Project site will discharge to a local sewer line maintained by the City, for conveyance to the CSDLAC's system. (Draft EIR, p. 4-141.) The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the Project site is 195,000 gallons per day ("gpd"). (Ibid.) The general plan amendment associated with the Project proposes an increase of 293,699 square feet above what is allowed under the, existing General Plan. (Ibid.) Therefore, the General; Plan Amendment may increase wastewater generation by approximately 95,452 gpd (0.1 million gallons per day ["mgd"]) over what is currently allowed under the General;Plan. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. _ With implementation of the following mitigation measure, impacts to sewer service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.6.1. The Project Applicant shall pay all required sewer connection fees to CSDLAC prior to issuance of a sewer connection permit. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) 3. , Supporting Explanation. CSDLAC's Santa Anita Outfall Trunk Sewer has an excess available capacity of 2.0 mgd and is able to adequately serve the 0.1 mgd increase generated by the Project. (Draft EIR, p: .4-141.) As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. (Ibid.) Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce all potential wastewater impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4;142.) Presuming future development is generally consistent with existing general plans, CSDLAD does not anticipate problems in supplying cumulative wastewater service to • any current and future development in the City. (Draft EIR, p.. 4-142.) Further, the proposed mall expansion is intended to serve-planned population growth within the 6197 . 93 region and will not result in any direct population increase. (Ibid.) Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to wastewater services are anticipated (Ibid.) SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL i. 1. Potential Significant Impacts. Waste disposal services will be provided by CSDLAC and waste will be disposed of at the Puente Hills Landfill. (Draft EIR, p. 4-142.) Development of fA the Project may increase the service demand on solid waste disposal beyond existing conditions and further impact the Puente Hills Landfill and the City's solid waste reduction and diversion programs. (Draft EIR, p. 4-143.) The Project is expected to generate approximately 3,900 tons of solid waste per year, a five percent increase within the City. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144.) With regard to cumulative impacts, the County of Los Angeles is facing serious disposal constraints in terms of daily capacity and long H� term disposal capacity, such that every effort must be made to minimize the amount of waste generated. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. With implementation of the following mitigation measures, impacts to sewer service will be reduced to less than significant: 4.8.6.1 All subsequent site plans and building plans on the Li Project site shall incorporate storage and collection recyclables into the Project design. All occupants shall be required to recycle, at a minimum, newspaper, glass bottles, aluminum and bi-metal cans, and P.E.T. bottles to divert_recyclables away from land - disposal. Recycling shall be incorporated in the Project design by reserving space 'Li appropriated for the support of recycling, including the provision of adequate storage areas and access for recycling vehicles. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144.) 4.8.6.2: All future refuse collection contracts serving the Project site shall include the collection of recyclables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-145.) i 3. Supporting Explanation. In accordance with CSDLAC recommendations, the Project will incorporate storage and collection of recyclables into the Project design. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144.) Also, occupants will be encouraged to recycle, and future refuse collection �.-. 6197 94 contracts will include the collection of recyclables. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144, 4145.) Therefore, implementation of the mitigation measures above will reduce all potential solid waste impacts to a level of insignificance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-145) Since the Project includes significant measures to reduce the amount of waste requiring landfill disposal, the Project's contribution to cumulative solid wastes is not considered significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4-144.) Section 4. Resolution regarding environmental impacts not fully mitigated to a level of less than significant. A. Air Quality . 1. Potential Significant Impacts. The Project may have potential significant impacts to air quality through construction activity, regional mobile source impacts, microscale air quality impacts,,and odors resulting from the site's proximity to the racetrack horse barns. Construction Activity Impacts: During construction, downwind receptors may be exposed to diesel exhaust particulates, which are an identified Human carcinogen. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) Health risk assessments of construction equipment diesel exhaust have demonstrated that there may be an elevated individual cancer risk in very close Project proximity. (Ibid.) Although this health risk to the surrounding public is, note considered significant, it is sufficiently adverse as to highly recommend all feasible minimization of diesel exhaust. (Ibid.) In addition, the age of existing structures proposed for renovation or _ I demolition indicates that there may be small amounts of asbestos-containing materials ("ACMs") in roofing or flooring. (Ibid.) Also, new construction typically utilizes paints, stains and other surface treatments that emit volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") when applied. (Ibid.) Application of more than 37.5 gallons of such paint per day;might cause significance thresholds to be exceeded.(Ibid.) Regional Mobile Source Impacts: The greatest Project-related air quality concern comes from the mobile source emissions that may be generated from Project site commercial activities. (Ibid.) The Project traffic consultant estimates 16,079 "new'." weekday vehicle trips may be generated at full site development. (Ibid.) On Saturdays, the net trips may increase to 20,000. (Draft EIR, p. 4-30.) Implementation 6197 95 of the Project may add approximately 120,000 weekday vehicle miles traveled ("VMT") to the existing regional VMT burden of around 300 million VMT per day. (Ibid.) In addition, Project operational emissions were calculated using a computerized model for buildout in 2002. From this model, the major automotive exhaust pollutants from Project-related .operational emissions are projected to be well above the threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") for both the Project • and for related growth. (Ibid.) According to the SCAQMD, emission levels above the recommended threshold are considered to have an individually and cumulatively significant impact. (Ibid.) Microscale Air Quality Impacts: A microscale carbon monoxide ("CO") impact screening analysis was used to estimate sensitive receptor air pollution exposure at a number of intersections near the Project area. (Draft EIR, p. 4-31.) This analysis showed a possible existing violation of the hourly CO standard at Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard during the evening peak hour. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) Odors Resulting from Site Proximity to Racetrack Horse Barns: Odors are a potential air quality issue for the Project site because of the presence of the nearby horse barns from the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) At night, odor potential increases because the wind direction reverses, wind speeds decrease, and low-level trapping inversions become established after dark. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) The odor potential across the Project site reaches a maximum very late at night. (Ibid.) 2. Findings. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to air quality to the extent feasible: 4.2.3.1. The Project shall include suppression measures for fugitive dust and those associated with construction equipment in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 and other AQMD requirements. Prior to the issuance of grading permits the Project Applicant shall submit a fugitive dust control plan to the Development Services Department for review and approval. The fugitive dust control plan shall require the construction contractor to implement measures which may include, but not be limited to, the following: • 6197 96 a. Using adequate water for dust control (preferably using reclaimed water). (Draft EIR, p. 4-35.) b. Operating street sweepers or roadway washing trucks on adjacent roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. (Ibid.) c. Covering trucks or wetting down loads of any dirt hauled to or from the Project site. (Ibid.) d. Performing low-NOX emissions tune-ups on o'n-site equipment operating on-site for more than 60 days. (Ibid.) e. Requiring on-site contractors to operate a congestion: relief program including: • Rideshare incentives for construction personnel. , • Lane closures limited to non-peak traffic hours. • Receipt of construction materials scheduled for non;peak traffic periods where possible. (Ibid.) 4.2.32. ' The Project Applicant shall encourage future visitors of the Project to utilize alternative forms of transportation through incorporation of the. ,following measures: • . a. Provide preferential parking spaces for employee carpools and van pools. (Ibid.) • b. Provide on-site bus shelters as determined necessary by the Development Services Director and provide a well-lighted, • safe path to the mall entrances. The design of the new shelters shall be compatible with the design of the mall and. shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Director. (Ibid.) c: Work with the City of Arcadia to implement a public outreach program that promotes alternative methods of transportation through information kiosks located in the mall. (Ibid.) 6197 97 iJ 3. Supporting Explanation. Air quality impacts during construction were shown to be well below significant threshold levels. .(Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) Potential construction dust soiling impacts will be confined mainly to cars parked near individual construction sites, but not to any nearby homes or other dust-sensitive uses. (Draft EIR, p. 4-28.) In addition, daily equipment exhaust will be below SCAQMD thresholds and air quality standards will not be exceeded during construction because of the limited total volume of emissions and the mobility of the emission sources. (Draft EIR, pp. 4-28 and 4-29.) In addition, the individual cancer risk from diesel exhaust will not be 'J significant. Because the large surrounding parking lot creates a substantial disturbance buffer and because of the direction of daytime winds, the diesel exhaust exposure from on-site construction equipment will be below the de minimis cancer risk threshold at the nearest homes along Baldwin Avenue and/or Huntington Drive. (Draft EIR, p. 4-29.) l I : Further, while there may be some concerns regarding ACMs within existing buildings, adequate mechanisms are in place to insure safe exposure for both asbestos H abatement workers as well as the general public. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project will maintain a less than significant threshold for VOC-containing compounds through the use of building materials that are pre- — coated under factory conditions and limiting the amount of paint and other VOC containing compounds applied on a given day. (Ibid.) Regarding microscale air quality impacts, the analysis for 21 intersections in the Project area presumed worst-case conditions for maximum local and regional CO exposure occurring at the same time calculated at 25 feet from the Li roadway edge. (Draft EIR, p.:4-32.) However, most residences near the Project site are generally beyond 25 feet from the edge of the roadways analyzed. (Ibid.) In 4-�I addition, the analysis shows that peak hour CO levels, even in very close proximity at all but one of the analyzed intersections, do not exceed the California one-hour CO Li standard. (Ibid.) Further, for the one location with a possible existing violation, Huntington Drive and Rosemead Boulevard, the theoretical peak levels, will drop to below the standard by 2002 because of "cleaner" cars in the future. (Ibid.) Also, all ;future one-hour CO concentrations for theoretical worst-case conditions will be below 6197 9s 1 the allowable threshold. (Ibid.) Further, the Project will not cause any new violations of the standards, nor measurably or substantially worsen any existing violations of the one-hour CO standard. (Ibid.) Regarding odors from the racetrack horse barns,odor has not been a major issue at the existing shopping center. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) Existing odors are minimized by prevailing winds and by odor/manure management practices at the track and barns. (Draft EIR, p. 4-32.) During hours when the shopping center use is heavy, winds are overwhelmingly from the Project site toward the barns. Barn odor during the day is carried from the barns toward the grandstands. (Ibid.) Although odor potential reaches a maximum late at night, the site use is essentially zero at that time. (Draft EIR, p. 4-34.) In addition, although expanded uses will bring more people to the shopping center, the character or intensity of existing odors will not change as a result of the Project. ( Ibid.) Odor impacts are, therefore, not considered significant. (Ibid.) Regarding mobile source impacts to air quality, there is only a limited potential for reducing any large percentage of these Project impacts since all potentially significant air quality impacts come from mobile source emissions and are beyond the direct control of the Project Applicant. (Ibid.) Although some "standard" mitigation measures such as using dust control measures during construction will be .'adopted, they fail to address the basic transportation-related air quality impacts. (Ibid.) Mitigation of Project-related and/or cumulative air quality impacts will be limited in scope and are clearly not of sufficient magnitude to achieve sub-significance threshold levels. (Ibid.) Therefore, Project-specific and cumulative development in accordance with the City of Arcadia General Plan may contribute to the cumulative air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin ("SCAB") due to generation of motor vehicle traffic. (Ibid.) As a result, Project-related air quality impacts are considered a significant unavoidable adverse impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4-36.) Although the Project may result in significant air quality impacts, the Project is consistent with transportation control measures ("TCMs") to reduce the number of vehicle trips (i.e., through encouraging carpooling and high occupancy vehicle usage). These TCMs are contained in SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide ("RCPG") and the Air Quality Management Plan ("AQMP") adopted by the 6197 99 1 City. (Draft EIR, p. 5-1.) Therefore, the Project promotes the RCPG and AQMP policies relating to the promotion of high occupancy vehicle/transit use. (Ibid.) Section 5. Resolution regarding alternatives. The City Council hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the, alternatives identified in the Draft EIR and described below. CEQA , requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly attain most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Project and (1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to an - acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations I which make the alternative infeasible. , The Draft EIR identified the objectives established by the Project Applicant, I Westfield Corporation, Inc., for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion, which are to: • Provide for the expansion of the existing mall in order to maintain the viability r of the shopping center. The existing shopping center is approximately 25 years old, and needs to be expanded, remodeled'and remerchandised in ` order to continue to meet the needs of the marketplace, adapt to changes in the retail environment, and attract the best retail concepts to preserve and grow its market share. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.) • • Allow for the construction of approximately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a General Plan Amendment (G.P. 99-001), Zone Change (Z-99-003), and a Text Amendment (T.A. 99-006). (Ibid.) ' • To create new jobs for Arcadia residents as well as provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) i 6197 l00 1 A. Alternative 1 — "No Project" Alternative 1. Description. Under the "No Project" Alternative, the Project would not be implemented and the existing General Plan and Zoning designations would remain unchanged. Also, the current City Council Resolution No. 4185, which controls development of the site, would remain in effect. (Draft EIR, p. 6-4.) Under this alternative, expansion of the existing shopping center would be limited to approximately 300,000 square feet, in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 4185. (Ibid.) Also under this alternative, the two restaurant pads would be excluded. (Draft EIR, p. 6-5.) All other components of the Project would remain the same under this alternative, except the square footages, including the theaters, would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. (Ibid.) Because of the exclusion of the restaurant pads and the reduction in square footage, this alternative is expected to slightly reduce the potential aesthetic impacts associated with the Project. (Ibid.) In addition, potential air pollutant emissions under this alternative would be reduced by. approximately 50 percent since the "No Project" Alternative is limited to only 300,000 square feet of expansion. . (Ibid.) This alternative would reduce potential Project generated emissions of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxide, although the thresholds would still be exceeded and considered significant. (Ibid.) Projected carbon monoxide emissions would be below the SCAQMD thresholds and not considered significant. (Ibid.) Further, under the "No Project" Alternative, the total acreage • impacted by grading would be slightly reduced due to the reduced building area. (Ibid.) However, all proposed structures under this alternative would be constructed in generally the same location and potential geology and soils impacts would generally be the same as the Project. (Ibid.) Additionally, under this alternative, the Project's potential noise impacts would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. However, no significant noise impacts were identified with the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-6.) Also, under this alternative, the demand for public services generated at the Project site would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, including the potential impacts on police and fire services. 6197' 101 1 (Ibid.) Further, the "No Project" Alternative•would generate fewer vehicle trips and would have fewer potential traffic-related impacts than the Project. (Ibid.) Also, under this alternative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid , waste would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. (Ibid.) Since the "No Project" Alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered I environmentally superior to the Project. (Ibid.) 2. Finding. I The City Council finds that although the "No Project" Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation. The "No Project" Alternative would reduce but not eliminate potential aesthetic, air quality, land/use planning, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems impacts when compared to the Project. (Ibid.) Impacts to geology/soils would be generally the same under this alternative, although these impacts are not considered significant under the Project. (Ibid.) Air quality impacts would still occur with the "No Project" Alternative and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required. In addition, this alternative does not meet the Project objective to allow for the construction of . approximately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) Further, without meeting this objective, the "No Project" Alternative cannot adequately • fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viability of the existing.shopping center and creating new jobs for Arcadia residents and providing additional sales tax revenue to the City. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project" Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. B. Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity Alternative (450,000 Square Foot Expansion) 1. Description. Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, an expansion of.450,000 square feet is proposed. Since the amount of square footage proposed under this q p p I 6197 102 • 1 alternative exceeds the amount currently allowed under the General Plan, a General Plan Amendment would still be required. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7.) All other components of the Project would remain the same under this alternative, except that the square footage, including the theaters, would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.) Regarding aesthetic impacts, this alternative includes the restaurant pads proposed at the northwest corner of the site and therefore would not reduce potential aesthetic impacts along Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) Although the Reduced Intensity Alternative would slightly reduce the bulk and mass of the expansion to the east due to reduced square footage, it is not expected to significantly reduce the aesthetic impacts associated with the Project. (Ibid.) The Reduced Intensity Alternative would reduce air pollutant emissions generated by Project-related traffic by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.) Although this alternative would reduce the projected exceedance of the SCAQMD Threshold Criteria, the thresholds would still be exceeded and considered significant. (Ibid.) In addition, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would slightly reduce the total acreage impacted by grading due to the reduced building area. (Ibid.) However, all proposed structures would be constructed in the same locations, and geologic constraints relating to faulting and seismicity would be the same. (Ibid.) Therefore, ,potential geology and soils impacts under the Reduced Intensity Alternative would generally be the same as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.) Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown would still exceed the currently allowable space under the General Plan by about 150,000 square feet. (Ibid.) As a result, a General Plan Amendment would be required as well , as a Zone Change to accommodate the restaurant pads, western expansion, and eastern expansion. (Ibid.) In addition, potential land use compatibility impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative regarding traffic, air quality and noise would generally be similar to the Project, although slightly less. (Ibid.) . Due to the slight reduction in associated traffic volumes, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in slight reductions of the noise volumes on adjacent arterials including West Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. (Ibid.) 6197 103 1 However, construction noise impacts from the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be I generally similar to the Project. (Ibid.) • Under the Reduced Intensity Alternative, the demand .for public , services generated at the Project site would be reduced by approximately 25 percent as compared to the Project, including the Project's impact on police and fire services. (Ibid.) Also, the Reduced Intensity Alternative.would generate fewer vehicle trips and would have fewer traffic-related impacts than the Project. (Ibid.) In addition, under the . Reduced Intensity Alternative, the Project's impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste would be reduced by approximately 25 percent. (Ibid.) Since the Reduced Intensity Alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, it is considered environmentally superior to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) 2. Finding. The City Council finds that although the Reduced Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project, it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 3. Supporting Explanation. I Although the Draft EIR identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative as environmentally superior, this alternative, when compared to the Project, would not result in significant reductions of impacts to aesthetics, air quality, geology/soils, land use/planning, and noise. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-7 and 6-8.) In addition, air quality impacts I would still be significant under the Reduced Intensity Alternative and a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) Further, this alternative does not meet the Project objective to allow for the construction of approximately 600,000 square feet of additional retail space through approval of a General Plan:Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) Further, without meeting this objective, the "No Project" alternative cannot adequately fulfill the Project objectives of maintaining the viability of the existing shopping center and creating new jobs for Arcadia residents and providing additional sales tax revenue I to the City. (Ibid.) Therefore, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. 1. 6197 • 104 I C. Alternative 3 —Alternative Design 1. Description. Under the.Alternative Design, the expansion area would move from the eastern portion of the property to the west. All other components of the Project, including construction of 600,000 square feet of additional building space, would remain the same. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) As a result, this alternative would reduce the potential visual impacts to residents and travelers on West Huntington Drive in relation to the historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands. (Ibid.) The Alternative Design would, however, significantly increase the bulk and mass of the expansion to the west due to the revised building envelope. (Ibid.) Under the Alternative Design, air pollutant emissions would be the same as the Project and would result in projected exceedance of the SCAQMD Threshold Criteria for carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, and nitrogen oxide "emissions. (Draft EIR, p. 6-11.) In addition, under this alternative the total acreage impacted by grading would be the same as the Project, though on the western portion of the Project site instead of the eastern portion. (Ibid.) Potential geology and soils impacts would generally be the same as the Project. (Ibid.) Under the Alternative Design, the proposed expansion would exceed the current allowable space under the General Plan by approximately 300,000 square feet. (Ibid.) As a result, a General Plan Amendment as well as a Zone Change would be required. (Ibid.)' However, due to greater sensitivity of the residential land uses located west of the site as compared to the Santa Anita Racetrack, potential land use compatibility impacts relating to aesthetics, traffic, air quality and noise would generally be greater than the Project. (Ibid.) Under the Alternative Design, the demand for public services would be the same as the Project, including the Project's impact on police and fire services. (Ibid.) Similarly, this alternative would generate the same number of vehicle trips as the Project and have the same impact on sewer, water, electricity, natural gas, and solid waste as the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) In addition, traffic volumes and associated noise generated from the Alternative Design may be similar to the Project. However, due to closer proximity to the residential uses located along Baldwin Avenue, 6197 105 1 construction noise impacts would be greater. (Draft EIR; p. 6-1t) Since the Alternative I Design would involve greater environmental impacts, it is considered environmentally inferior to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) ' V 2. ' Finding. The City Council finds that the Alternative Design is environmentally inferior to the Project and rejects it. ' 3. Supporting Explanation. . Implementation of the Alternative Design would result in substantial changes to the existing viewshed for residences located along Baldwin Avenue. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.) These residences are more sensitive to visual changes than the Santa Anita Racetrack to the north and east. Therefore, this alternative will result in greater I aesthetic impacts and is not considered environmentally superior to the Project. (Ibid.) In addition to increased aesthetic impacts, the Alternative Design would increase potential land use/planning and noise impacts when compared to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-12.) Further, significant air quality impacts would still occur and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would still be required. (Ibid.) Since the Alternative Design would involve greater environmental impacts, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible because it is environmentally inferior to the Project and rejects it. D. Alternative Site During the scoping/planning process for the Project, the feasibility of developing the Project on an Alternative Site was reviewed and rejected. (Draft EIR, p. 6-2.) The main reason for rejecting an analysis of an Alternative Site was that such an alternative would not be consistent with the Project's main objective of modernizing and expanding the existing Westfield Shoppingtown. (Ibid.) In addition, development of the Project on an Alternative Site would result in significantly greater environmental impacts 1 because the Project site is already developed as an existing mall. (Ibid.) Section 6. Resolution regarding growth-inducing impacts. I State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a Project. This discussion must examine ways in which the Project could 1 foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either I 6197 106 t directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. (Draft EIR, p. 8-1.) Regarding the Project's potential for removal of obstacles to growth, no major new infrastructure facilities are required to develop this Project. (Draft EIR, p. 8-2.) Existing facilities will be sufficient to accommodate the demands of the Project at full buildout. (Ibid.) In addition, the Project is surrounded by urban development and would not induce growth within currently undeveloped areas. (Ibid.) Regarding any potential need to expand public services for the Project, the public agencies consulted have indicated that this Project would require the incremental expansion of existing. public services in order to maintain desired levels of service. (Ibid.) However, the City of Arcadia Fire and Police Departments are currently serving the existing mall. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth inducing impacts to public services. (Ibid.) Regarding encouragement of economic activities, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would temporarily be created during Project construction. (Ibid.) This would be a direct, growth inducing effect of the Project. (Ibid.) Long-term effects would include increased economic activity created by new tenants and use categories such as a multi-plex theater, restaurants, department stores, and entertainment and specialty stores. (Ibid.) The Project is expected to generate approximately 780 full-time jobs and 780 part-time jobs. Therefore, the Project would directly encourage or facilitate economic activities in the City of Arcadia. (Ibid.) Regarding any potential precedent setting action, the Project is consistent with the City of Arcadia General Plan Commercial land use designations for the Project site. (Ibid.) However, the Project includes a proposed General Plan amendment to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 and a proposed change to existing zoning standards to allow for an expanded building envelope. (Ibid.) The Project site will remain commercial and the only modifications to the code involve design, setback, and architectural issues. (Ibid.) Since the Project does not include any housing units, it will not directly result in any additional residents to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 8- 3.) The Project will increase the amount of commercial retail space in the City. (Ibid.) In fact, the proposed General Plan amendment exceeds the growth projections for commercial land uses in the City by approximately 3.8 percent. (Ibid.) However, the 6197 107 Project site is already developed and Project implementation will not open any 1 additional lands for urban development. Section 7. Resolution regarding unavoidable and irreversible impacts. Implementation of the Project will require the commitment,of non-renewable and/or slowly renewable energy resources, human resources, and natural resources I I such as lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, other metals, and water. (Draft 'EIR, p. 7-1.) An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, and sewer and water - services) will also be required to serve the proposed expansion. (Ibid.) Project �J development also represents the continued, commitment of the site to urban uses. (Ibid.) The site has been developed as a shopping mall for approximately' 25 years. After the 50 to 75-year structural lifespan of the buildings is reached, it is improbable that the site would revert to an undeveloped state due to the large capital investment • that will have already been committed. (Ibid.) . • Section 8. Resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby declares that pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any • unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether'to approve the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered "acceptable." The, City Council hereby declares that the EI,R has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of " the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section IV of these Findings. The City Council hereby declares that it has made a,reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project. The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR and/or Project could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the .Project that 6197 108 I • would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. The City Council hereby declares, that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the.Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: • The Project will generate approximately 780 additional full-time jobs and 780 additional part-time jobs within the City of Arcadia. These will include a variety of new jobs in a wide range of income classifications, including, but not limited to, managers, sales persons, food service, security, and maintenance. (Draft EIR, p. 4-58.) This will meet the Project objective to create new jobs for Arcadia residents. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.) • The Project will generate additional tax revenue that may be used to renovate existing city facilities or construct new city facilities to provide service to the public. (Draft EIR, p. 4-53.) This will meet the Project objective to provide additional sales tax revenue to the City of Arcadia. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.) • Project implementation will encourage economic viability by expanding and modernizing the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita. (Draft EIR, p. 4-58.) This will meet the Project objective to maintain viability of the shopping center and preserve and grow its market share. (Draft EIR, p. 2-1.) • 6197 109 The City Council hereby declares that the .foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The Board of Education finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Section 9. Resolution regarding Certification of the EIR. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluatin g 1 the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the j independent judgment of the City Council. p _ g Y The City Council declares that no new significant impacts as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 have been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. The City Council certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: 1 A. Findings. The following significant environmental impact has been identified in the Draft EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in Section IV of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance: air quality. I B. Conclusions. 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the Project have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for the impact I listed in Section A above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly ( ` achieve the basic objectives of the Project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any . t L! 6197 , 110 alternatives to the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into • the Project. Section 10. Resolution adopting a Mitigation Monitoring'and Reporting Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A." In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan shall control. Section 11. Resolution regarding custodian of record. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Arcadia, 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066-6021. The custodian for these records is the City of Arcadia, Development Services Department, Community Development Division. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. Section 12. Resolution regarding staff direction. • A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Los Angeles within five • (5) working days of approval of the Project. Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of 2000. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia • Approved as to Form: Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney 6197 1)11 • J STATE OF CALIFORNIA , ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council on the day of , 2000, and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote, to wit: 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: S • City Clerk of the City of Arcadia • t I 11 6197 112 Li SECTION 8 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 6198 APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 RESOLUTION NO. 6.198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 2-1 — CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM .40 TO .50 FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — SANTA ANITA (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE) WHEREAS, this General Plan Amendment (GP 99-001) was initiated by - Westfield Corporation, Inc. to change the General Plan Land Use designation in the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the maximum floor area ratio from .40 to .50 for the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita (the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive); WHEREAS, on July 25, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on August 8, 2000 voted 4 to 0 with one member absent to adopt Resolution 1614 expressing the Commission's comments and recommendation to the City Council regarding General Plan Amendment 99-001. ' - WHEREAS, on September 5, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing on: (1) the final Environmental Impact Report; (2) General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, (3) Zone Change Z-99-003 and (4) Text Amendment 99-006 for the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita expansion; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of this hearing, the City Council reviewed and considered: . 1. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Community Development Division to the City Council; 2. The record of the Planning Commission hearing regarding the General Plan Amendment G.P. 99-001, Zone Change Z-99-003-and Text Amendment 99-006 for the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita expansion; and 3. All letters, information and material presented as part of the public testimony at the City Council public hearing on September 5, 2000, including the staff 6198 113 II report, the Final EIR and all oral presentations and documentation presented at the �s public hearing; and WHEREAS, the above recitals are hereby incorporated as part of the findings set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, 1J CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DECIDE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. J -_ Section 2. The City Council finds: 9�{ 1. That the proposed General Plan amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 is consistent with the maximum FAR allowed for commercial 1� properties within the City. This would allow up to an additional 300,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area at Westfield Shoppingtown over and above the additional 300,000+ sq. ft. allowed with the current general plan.designation. . 2. That the approval of General Plan Amendment 99-001 is in the public interest and will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the. property or improvements in the zone in which Westfield Shopping Town is located or vicinity. 3. That the project as proposed including the mitigation measures, Final EIR (hereby incorporated by this reference) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will comply with the objectives and policies set forth in the General Plan; and that the City Council concurs with the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant effects under provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and California Code of Regulations Sections 15091 and 15093 as set forth in Resolution 6151. Section 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Land Use designation in the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the maximum floor area ratio from .40 to .50 for the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita (the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive). • 1 6198 , 114 Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney • • • 6198 115 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 6198 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of • said Council on the day of , 2000, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: • . _ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia - I I• • I • I Li • 6198 116 _1 SECTION 9 RESOLUTION 4185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY_COUNZIL OF . ------C---±-TYolqARC.A.DIAf§TABLISHING REGULATIONS _ FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY. AT THE ' NORTHEAST - CORNER OF.HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND BALDWIN • • AVENUE UPON ITS RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-2, D AND H ZONES. • • THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS : • • On April 20, 1971, a proposition will be submitted to the voters of the City .of Arcadia for the adoption of an ordinance which provides for the rezoning of certain property at the northeast: - cornei- of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue to the C-2, D, and H • zones; to be used as a site for a regional shopping center . In order to protect and DroMote the public health, safety :..and general welfare of the - City,' it .is necessary that conditions be established which will be effective if said ordinance is adopted by the voters to secure the development of a high quality regional • shopping center on the site . Therefore, in order to promote and protec- the public health, safety and welfare and in—emordance with arid subject to the provisions of the D Architectural Design Zone regulations of the Arcadia' MunicipalCode, the regulations aet forth herein shall cOn- • trol the development and use of said property. . • The conditions are as follows : • 1.. The property shall be developed and used only for a • , .• high quality regional shopping center with department stores together with supplementary specialty shops and facilities including restaurants ' • •• - - - and not more than two automobile convenience centers . The development shall be based upon the plans and concepts submitted with the owner 's application for rezoning, excluding the office buildings . • • 117 2. The buildings: shall be constructed within the areas _ shown on the Design O.ver_lay__S Lee_Plan_why ch_i-s_at t_a•c e_d eretc_an-d,____ made a part hereof. ; L . . 3. Preliminary plans shall be submitted to and shall be subject to approval by the Arcadia City Council . The final plans shall comply substantially with the preliminary plans and shall be submitted to and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 4. No building permit for any construction .on said site shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have been complied with or assurances satisfactory to the City Council have been made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled. 5 . 3 Construction shall commence within 30 months after 1 the effective date hereof and shall be diligently prosecuted to completion. If this condition is not fulfilled, the property shall be reclassified to the zoning existing before the adoption of this resolution. The owner shall be entitled to an extension of time equal to the duration of any delay arising from factors beyond the Itcontrol of the owner, such as wars labor strikes or disputes and litigation testing or affecting the-validity of this resolution or said ordinance, which prevent commencement of construction, and I the City Council at its sole discretion may extend the time if unusual delays are caused by City administrative p rocedures . 6.. No certificate of occupancy for any part of the project II shall be issued until the entire project is completed unless approval is given by the City Council upon a showing that the project II will be completed within a reasonable time after a certificate of occupancy Is issued far a part of the project . 7. Any use of the property which is subject to the - f � . Conditional Use Permit provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit . ti 118 o.. j ne owner s.na,a.s p.ay tine cos. or - ae.signi.ng, constructing or reconstrue.ting`.stree.ts and. other structures . and devices which the .City Council from time to time; but not exceeding 'five years from final completion of. the project, determines to be required for the accom- modatl.on and control of the vehicular traffic which will be generated in whole or in part by the shopping center, provided. that dedication . • of property or the widening of Baldwin Avenue, other than that pro- - vided for in this - resolution, shall not be required. Without limita.- 'tion, such work shall include the following: • a. Construction and installation of traffic controls, structures and other devices .on Hugo Reid Drive between Baldwin- 'Avenue Avenue and Michillinda 'Boulevard will prevent or minimize to the greatest practical extent the use of Hugo Reid Drive by persons other than those going to and from residences in the area bounded by Baldwin Avenue, Huntington Drive, Michillinda Boulevard and Colorado Street . b.. Reconstruction of- Baldwin- Avenue to a width- of 82 feet between curbs, between Huntington Drive .and the most northerly point of the site boundary, and. any- 'additional distance, northerly of said point as is necessary to--make.--an-orderly transition from the divided hight4.a.t to the existing street . The reconstruction shall include, without litita..tion, the installation of astreet lights, a landscaped median strip and sprinkler system and a sidewalk along the east .side of Baldwin .Avenue from Huntington Drive to said most. . northerly point . • c . Installation of a sIidewalk and street lights along the north side of Huntington Drive between Baldwin Avenue and Holly Avenue . t d. Construction of curbs and gutters along the west side of Colorado Place adjacent to. the owner '..s .property which is • easterly of the site . • 119 e . Installation of facilities to accommodate public transportation vehicles . The owner shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works in the • preparation of plans to meet the requirements of this section; said • plans shall - show all points of access to the site, shall include on- site internal circulation plans, and shall be submitted with the preliminary plans for the project and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. Traffic routes and time schedules for construction _-traffic shall be approved by .the Director of Public Works.. 9 . A 20 foot wide strip of the owner 's p property adjacent to the east side of Baldwin Avenue and extending the entire length of that part of Baldwin Avenue to be widened, shall be irrevocably offered 'for ., dedication for the widening of Baldwin Avenue. II�, 10. All rain water and surface water on the site shall be • collected and drained over the owner 's adjacent property into existing 1 , flood control channels located on said property; no rain water or other surface water shall be drained onto adjacent public streets . 11. All sewers serving the property shall. be donnected to the II existing County trunk line which is located on a portion of the owner ' s adjacent property near Holly Avenue and Huntington Drive . I 12. Parking shall be provided in accordance with the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance, and on-site parking spaces shall be provided at all times for all employees of the shopping center.. If necessary to meet parking requirements, a two-level parking structure may be constructed adjacent to and east of the mall, in accordance with II plans approved by the City Council. On-site parking shall be -provided for all construction workers . 1/ 13. On-site water mains, fire hydrants, and fire -alarms shall I � be installed in accordance with standards established by the Fire • s Department and Water Department and approved by the City Council . i [ 120 15.. All signs shall be .subject to the Zoning Ordinance, ---------e c c:egg—that�a-n e—adze t nal—frees sLanding si Shal iTh e permitted—_ . ...... .. ......__ which shall not exceed the maximum size permitted by said ordinance . 16.. Landscape- plans prepared by a registered landscape architect shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Council before any building permit is issued for any part of the project . Said plans shall include, without limitation, the following characteristics : a. A 20 foot wide landscaped buffer strip ( said 20 foot strip shall be on the site and adjacent to the 20 foot strip to be offered for dedication for the widening of Baldwin Avenue) • with a minimum six foot high earth berm shall be planted and con- strutted adjacent to Baldwin Avenue and a minimum 10 foot wide landscaped strip on the property adjacent to Huntington Drive . • b . . A landscaping strip averaging five feet in width shall be planted along the interior roadways . c . Three per cent of the parking areas shall be land- , r:. scaped and the planting beds shalom=-be distributed evenly throughout the 'entire parking area. Any plot plan showing the entire three per cent landscaping in one or two large planting beds, or con- centrated on only one portion of the parking area, will not be acceptable . Any unused space resulting from the design of the parking spaces shall be used for planting purposes . No planting -• area or island shall have an average width of less than three feet . The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must be drawn to scale and -the plants within clearly designated and labeled . All planting areas or islands shall be surrounded by a continuous raised concrete curb . The required landscaped buffer- . . areas adjacent to Huntington Drive and. Baldwin Avenue shal l not be 121 areas. Where .a parking area ..abuts . the, buildings on the stab ject I property.the_bo r_der_plant_ ng __ad.tacen o--thos� ui . _ - _ 1�.ng�-shallno_t ...:___ _ be considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas . d. The exterior of the mall shall b.e . d.eveloped with special landscaping and decorative treatment such as a raised land- scaped berm. . e . To facilitate- the processing of landscaping plans, a. plant list shall be prepared giving the botanical and ..common names of the plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 1, 5, or 15 gallon containers) , and quantity of each. The plants should I_ be listed alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in I locating the plants on the plan. . f . All landscaped areas shall be provided with a permanent, below grade irrigation system. All domestic water supply lines to which irrigation systems are connected shall be protected by installation of atmospheric or pressure type vacuum breakers : At least one hose bibb shall be located for each one hundred (100) itlineal feet . . Hose bibbs, where.ver__....p_ossible, shall be located in planting. beds . Hose bibbs ._shall not be located where they will interfere with pedestrian or vehicular circulation. g. Parkway trees shall be installed on Baldwin Avenue at locations designated by the Department of Public Works . These trees shall conform to the City Master. Plan for Street Trees. 1 and be installed on approximately forty foot centers . 17. Light standards on the site shall be a maximum.of 1 20. feet in height . The height of the_ light standards shall be measured from the elevation of the adjacent pavement of the parking lot. Lighting shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way and shall be subject to approval. by the City Council. 122 . 1 for the protection and control of persons. and property on the site . 19 . The following uses shall be permitted: Apparel & Accessories Impor.ts., Cards &; Gifts Fabrics.. & Sewing Books Sporting Goods, Hobbies & Crafts Toys Housewares Home Furnishings, Furniture, Appliances & Interior • Design Variety Specialty Food, Liquor & Tobacco Music, Records, Radio & T.V. Pet Shops Optometrist Restaurants Department .Stores • Camera& Photographic. Supplies & Services Financial Institutions Luggage Drugs Beauty & Barber Shops & 'F3.gure Salon Other Retail Specialty Shops, except those expressly • excluded. Other uses which the City Council determines are appropriate and compatible with a. regional shopping center . The following uses-:shall -not be permitted: Employment Agencies Feed Stores Messenger Service Newspaper Publishing Plumbing Shops Taxidermist. Telephone Exchange Service Food Supermarkets Gasoline Service Stations Printing or Lithographing Shops Self-Service Laundries and Cleaners ' 20. Within ten days after adoption of this resolution the owner shall (1) execute a written agreement, which by its terms shall be binding on its successors in interest, to abide by and perform the conditions of this resolution. • r ' 123 21. The City Council may add ta, amend or modify the _condi_t this__resolution_in .._manner not_inconsistent with the concept and substance of this resolution, provided that the building envelope shown on the Design Overlay Site Plan shall not be altered. This resolution shall become effective if and when said 11 ordinance rezoning the property is adopted by the voters of the City of Arcadia on April 20, 1971 . The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Arcadia held on the 16th day of February, 1971, by, the affirmative vote of at . least three Councilmen, to wit : I/ AYES : Councilmen Hage, Helms and Butterworth NOES : Councilmen Arth and Considine ABSENT: None /.s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk of the. City of Arcadia I SIGNED AND APPROVED this 16th day of February, 1971. /s/ EDWARD L. BUTTERWORTH Mayor of the City of Arcadia �- ATTEST: /s/ CHRISTINE VAN MAANEN City Clerk (SEAL) -8- . 124 '._i SECTION 10 DRAFT CC RESOLUTION RESCINDING 4185 7 RESOLUTION NO. xxxx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION 4185 AND ESTABLISHING NEW REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN • PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND BALDWIN AVENUE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-2 D AND H ZONES WHEREAS, in order to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of Arcadia ("City"), it is necessary that specific conditions be established to insure that the continued development and expansion of the regional shopping center on the property at the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue (the "Property"), generally depicted on the map attached hereto as Exhibit "A", will be harmonious with the high quality of the existing shopping center and compatible with development in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the D Architectural Design Zone regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the regulations set forth herein shall control the development and use of the Property; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report has been adopted certifying that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to adoption of this resolution. •-- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY • FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby rescinds City Council Resolution 4185; I p rovided, however, that in the event there is any successful challenge to all or part of this Resolution then the provisions of Resolution 4185 shall automatically be'deemed to be in full force and effect. Section 2. The City Council adopts the following design guidelines for the Property. 125 • 1.. The Property shall continue to be developed and used only for a high quality regional shopping center with department stores, together with supplementary specialty shops and facilities including restaurants, multi-plex theater(s), a food market or markets more than two automobile convenience centers. All development ment on the and not m p Property p rtY 11 shall be subject to the specific conditions set forth in this Resolution and all plans for any and all development on the Property shall be submitted by the owner of the Property to the City for review and approval in accordance with all procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code and resolutions, rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of the City. r 2. All buildings on the Property shall be constructed within the areas shown on the Design Overlay Site Plan that is attached hereto as Exhibit"B" and made a part hereof. 3. Any and all preliminary site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs for development on the Property shall be submitted to the Development Services Department of the City. Said plans shall be subject to design review and recommendation by the Planning Commission following a public hearing, and following its receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation, then design review and approval,disapproval or modification by the City a Council following a public hearing. The final plans shall substantially comply with the preliminary plans and shall be submitted by the owner of the Property to the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director,'or his/her designee, for approval, disapproval or modification. The Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director shall review the final plans for compliance with the approved preliminary plans. 4. No building permit for any construction on the Property shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have been complied with or assurances satisfactory to the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director have been made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled. 5. Any use of the Property which is otherwise subject to the Conditional Use Permit provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; ' provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Building • 126 LI, • • • Area C [mall area] as shown on the Zoning/Design overlay site plan. 6. Parking shall be provided on the Property in accordance, with the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and on-site parking spaces shall be provided at all times for all employees of the shopping center. If necessary to meet parking requirements, multi-level parking structures may be constructed on the Property adjacent to and east of the mall, in accordance with plans approved by the City. 7. Parking structures shall be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the structures. The parking structures shall be architecturally compatible with the mall architecture and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. 8. Any floor area within the mall common area devoted to portable carts (not kiosks) shall not be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance for providing off-street parking spaces. 9. All signs shall be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance, except the following: a. Two (2) freestanding mall identification signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the Property; one [1] on Baldwin Avenue and one [1] on Huntington Drive. The total area of said signs shall not exceed 350 sq. ft. per sign (including - -. both faces). b. Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more, theaters/cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable square footage. Tenant signs facing on an open-air mall area and not exposed to the public right-of-way shall be excluded from this provision. c. Single-sided monument signs. shall be allowed for a food market, theater/cinemas and restaurants/eating establishments each containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more and that have public entrances from the exterior of the shopping mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open air mall area and located within planter areas. The total square footage of each 127 J • sign shall not exceed 36 square feet. 10. All signs shall be compatible with the signing program approved by the City __j Council as part of the design review process and shall be subject to final review and ti approval of the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee. 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the landscape plans approved by the City Council shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect and , shall be submitted to and approved by the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee, before any building permit is issued for any part of the .project. Said plans shall include or be in conformance with the following, without limitation: a. A 20 foot wide landscaped buffer strip with a minimum six foot high earth berm shall be maintained adjacentto Baldwin Avenue and a minimum 10 foot wide landscaped buffer shall be planted and maintained adjacent to Huntington Drive. b. In addition to the landscaping required'in Section 11 a. and b. above, ! three (3) per cent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and the planting beds shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area. Landscaping shall not be concentrated on only one portion of the parking area, but dispersed , throughout the parking lot. Any unused space resulting from the design of the parking spaces shall be used for planting purposes. No planting area or island shall have an average width of less than three feet. The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must be drawn to scale and the plants shall be clearly designated and labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall surround all planting areas or islands. The required landscaped buffer areas adjacent to Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue shall not be considered as part of the three per cent "landscaping" of the parking areas. Where a parking area � i. abuts the buildings on the subject property the border plantings adjacent to those buildings shall not be considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas. � c. The solid exterior walls of the mall shall be developed with decorative 128 �y landscaping and treatment such as.,a raised landscaped berm. d. To facilitate the processing of landscaping plans, a plant list shall be i prepared giving the botanical and common names of the plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 1., 5 or 15,gallon containers), and quantity of each The plants should be listed alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in locating the plants on the plan. e. Additional parkway trees shall be installed, if necessary, at locations designated by the Public Works Services Director. These trees shall conform to the City Master Plan for Street Trees and be installed in accordance with Public Works Services Department standards. 12. Light standards on the Property shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height The height of the light standards shall be measured from the elevation of the adjacent pavement of the parking lot. Lighting shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way and shall be subject to approval of the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee. 13. The owner.of the Property shall provide adequate security personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the Property. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any new buildings on the Property (including the parking. structures). 14. Structures located within Building Pads A and B shall be limited to two (2) stories and a maximum.of thirty (30) feet in height. . 15. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks and carts of 15'-0". Kiosks and carts shall be harmonious in design. 16. The following uses shall be permitted: Apparel and Accessories stores . Beauty and Barber Shops and Figure Salons Bookstores Camera and Photographic Supplies & Services Department Stores . . . , Drugstores 129 • Electronic equipment stores, including video, DVD, computer equipment, communication equipment, cell phones, pagers and I other types of electronic appliances. Fabrics and Sewing stores Financial Institutions including free-standing ATM machines Fitness Centers, Health Clubs Food stores no greater than 38,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area Home,Furnishings, Furniture, Appliances and Interior Design Housewares Imports, Cards and Gifts ;�y • Luggage, Music, records, radio, video, DVD and television sales stores Optometrist/Opticians Pet Shops Restaurants and other eating establishments offering food and beverage service, including outdoorr dining, the sale of on-site liquor and entertainment* Li; Specialty Food, Liquor and Tobacco stores • Sporting Goods, Hobbies and/or Craft stores Theaters/cinemas Toys Variety Stores • Other Retail Specialty Shops, except those expressly excluded Other uses that the City Council determines are appropriate and compatible with a regional shopping center. t , Kiosks and/or carts within the enclosed and open air mall common area shall be permitted provided the use thereof shall be in accordance with the above list of permitted uses. • "Entertainment" shall be defined as such activities as high tech interactive simulation games, live music, dancing, billiards, bowling, ping pong, shuffleboard, banquet facilities and other family-oriented group activities (provided by Westfield). Entertainment shall be incidental to a restaurant/eating establishment use. [-, The following uses shall be permitted only with an approved conditional use permit: • Entertainment uses including such activities as high tech interactive -- simulation games, live music, dancing, billiards, bowling, ping .pong, shuffleboard, banquet facilities and other family oriented group activities. Food service may be an incidental use in an entertainment facility. I The following uses shall not be permitted: .• 130 I • Body Art studios including but not limited to tattoos, body piercing (other than ears) and body painting. Check cashing, instant cash, cash advance businesses (exclusive of ATM machines) Employment Agencies Feed Stores Gasoline Service Stations Messenger Service Newspaper Publishing Plumbing Shops Printing or Lithographing Shops Self-Service Laundries and Cleaners • Taxidermist • Telephone Exchange Service Vending machines (on the exterior of the enclosed and open-air mall area as well as all other buildings on the site) Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of an ordinance that reclassifies all or a portion of the Property to the C-2 D and C-2 D and H Zones. • Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2000. 4 Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST:- City Clerk of the City of Arcadia • APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch • City Attorney 131 i SECTION 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616 AND 1617 ---------- - I RESOLUTION 1613 i . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FORWARDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (G.P. 99-001), ZONE CHANGE (Z-99-003) AND TEXT AMENDMENT (T.A. 99-006) FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN —. SANTA ANITA EXPANSION WHEREAS, in June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. filed the following applications to allow the construction of up to 600,000 square foot expansion of the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita, Community Development Division Cases No. G.P. 99-001, Z-99-003 and T.A. 99-006, located at 400 South Baldwin Avenue, the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit. i ' WHEREAS, in response to the application, the following environmental process has been undertaken: 1. A Notice of Preparation was circulated on December 9, 1999 describing the City's intent to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project and requesting comments regarding its content, to interested and responsible agencies, organizations and individuals. 2. The Templeton Planning Group under contract to the City and under the City's direction prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report. Based upon the issues identified in the initial study and responses to the Notice of Preparation the consultants commenced work. 3. Prior to releasing the document for public review, the City conducted. its own independent evaluation and analysis of the Draft EIR. 4. The Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15150) and City Council Resolution 6168. . 5. The City of Arcadia is the lead agency for this EIR and has supervised preparation and has independently reviewed the consultants' work. The EIR must be certified as complying with CEQA by the City prior to approval of any subsequent permitting by the City and other public agencies. 6. On May 19, 2000, the City of Arcadia, as Lead Agency circulated the Notice of Completion and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Westfield 1613 132 Shoppingtown project to all interested agencies for a 45 day review period which ended • July 3, 2000. 7. During the 45 day review period, a public hearing was held on June 13, 2000, to allow the Planning Commission and the public an opportunity to comment on { the Draft EIR at which time all interested persons were give full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. This is in accordance with Section 15025(c) of the CEQA guidelines which states: "Where an advisory body such as a planning commission is required to make a recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the advisory body shall also review and consider the EIR or Negative Declaration in draft or final form." . NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based upon an initial study, the Draft EIR analyzed the following potentially significant adverse impacts: a)' Aesthetics 1 b) Geology and Soils c) Land Use and Planning d) Noise e) Public Services f) Transportation/Traffic g) Utilities/Service Systems Section 2. The Planning Commission noted that during the public hearing on the Draft EIR that with the exception of the impacts set forth below, the significant environmental effects of the project were clearly identified and described giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects. The Commission recommended that further study and analysis of the following be included in the Final EIR: a) Discussion of the traffic pattern differences along the 210 freeway, north of Baldwin Avenue and east and west of Foothill Boulevard. . b) Discussion of traffic along Colorado Boulevard. ;: c) Discussion regarding at what point does the "unavoidable adverse impact on air quality" become sufficient to deny a project. d) Discussion of the traffic affects of any special events at the race track on this development from a cumulative standpoint. e) More discussion regarding the nexus formula for traffic mitigation. 1613 133 • . i f) More details on the mitigation measures as they deal with police services' g) More clarification of shared-use parking. Section 3. In regards to the Final EIR, the Planning Commission noted; that most comments had been clarified, however, they felt the following issues needed to be addressed in more detail: a) The shared parking issue needs"to be further reviewed in the Final EIR. b) The traffic study should specifically discuss the race track impacts. c) In regards to Air Quality, the Final EIR should take specific notice that it is an unmitigated environmental impact. Section 4. The Final EIR lists the following alternatives to the project: a) Alternative 1: No. project (mandatory CEQA alternative). Under the "no project" alternative an additional 300,000 sq. ft. could be constructed within the current building envelope in accordance with the existing City Council Resolution 4185. The current 'building envelope would exclude the two restaurant pads located near Baldwin Avenue. This alternative is consistent with the adopted General. Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The "No Project" alternative would reduce potential aesthetic, air quality, land use/planning, • noise, public services, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems impacts when compared to the proposed 600,000 sq. ft. project. Air quality impacts would still occur. ' Since this alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project. b) Alternative 2: Reduced Intensity Alternative (450,000 sq. ft. expansion). This would still require a General Plan Amendment; however, this alternative would slightly reduce the bulk and mass of the expansion. This alternative would reduce potential air quality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems impacts when compared to the proposed project. Significant air quality impacts would still occur. Since this alternative would involve fewer environmental impacts, this alternative is considered - environmentally superior to the proposed project. c) Alternative 3: Alternative Design. In response to concerns expressed regarding potential view blockage of the historic Santa Anita Racetrack grandstands from West Huntington Drive, this alternative would move the expansion area from the eastern portion of the property to the west. All other components would remain the same. This' alternative would increase • 1613 134 the proposed project and is considered environmentally inferior to the __ proposed project. _` Section 5. The Planning Commission's comments and recommendations set L forth in this Resolution are based on information presented to date and that the final decision by the. City Council should take into consideration all comments including those set forth_ in the minutes. of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 25, 2000 and those received subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing and is contingent. i on a Final Environmental Impact Report being certified by the Council. Section 6. The recommendations contained in this Resolution _ reflect the Commission's action on July 25, 2000 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter _I NOES: None • Section 7. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that. the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular r meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 6t" day of August, 2000 by the following vote: �1 AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner • . Chai, an, PlanriingCOmmission i. City f Arcadia . ATTEST: =-' 41, „.....- # ' - . 1 - ecr-tary, ' anning ommission • • City of Arcadia . • Approved by: . Step en P. Deitsch, City Attorney • j - 1613 • 135 Order No: 8133333 -F52 1 � •,,� DESCRIPTION • • • PARCEL A: • • . PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261 PAGES 91 TO 95 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED ON PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 , PARCEL B: PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6374, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 89 PAGES 76 AND 77 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF. SAID PARCEL 2 DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, RECORDED APRIL 26, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NOS . 93-768461 THROUGH 93-768465 . • PARCEL C: PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4626, •IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 50 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL D: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS, . AUTOMOBILE PARKING AND INCIDENTAL USE, FOR THE INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE AND COMMON UTILITY LINES, AND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, AS AN APPURTENhNCE TO PARCEL "A" ABOVE AND PARCEL C , AS DEFINED IN AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" OF; THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT 'CAPTIONED "CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT" DATED JANUARY 25, 1974, EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BROADWAY-HALE STORES INC. , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND J. • C. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1974 IN BOOK M-4581 PAGE 489, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 482, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1 THERETO, DATED JANUARY 19, 1978 EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CARTER HAWLEY HALE STORES, INC. , (FORMERLY BROADWAY-HALE STORES, INC. ) , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, J. 'C. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND , ADCOR REALTY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1978 AS •INSTRUMENT NO. 76-71491, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 2 THERETO, DATED AUGUST 16, 1989, RECORDED OCTOBER 26, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NQ. 89-1725066, AND AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 3 THERETO, DATED DECEMBER 29, 1993 RECORDED DECEMBER 30', 1993 AS • INSTRUMENT NO. 93-2542583 . EXHIBIT - 98 2329402 • . 136 DUCILSO••12/C4/91 AA • • RESOLUTION 1614 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-001 TO MODIFY THE MAXIMUM INTENSITY FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FROM .40 TO .50 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE). WHEREAS, in June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. filed an application for a general plan amendment to modify the maximum intensity floor area ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 to allow the construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion of the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita, Community Development Division Case No. G.P. 99-001 located at 400 South Baldwin Avenue, the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 25, 2000 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds: 1. That the request to modify the floor area ratio (FAR) from .40 to .50 is consistent with the maximum FAR for all commercial areas within the City, with the exception of the southerly Race Track parking lot which has a FAR of .30, and that this FAR would allow up to an additional 300,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area in addition to the additional 300,000 sq. ft. currently allowed by the General Plan. 2. That the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the FEIR are appropriate; that with the exception of "Air Quality", this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends; and, therefore, the Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment and filing of a Notice of Determination. Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that "Table 2-A — City General Plan Land use Designations" in the Community Development Section of the General Plan be amended to read: 1614 137 Section 3. The Planning Commission recommends that "Table 2-A — City General Plan Land use Designations" in the Community Development Section of the General Plan be amended to read: • .50 Westfield Shoppingtown —Santa Anita (the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive) . Section 4. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission recommends I to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 99-001 based upon the information submitted by the Applicant to the City as of date of this Resolution. Section 5. The decisions and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's direction at its meeting of July 25, 2000 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: None • H Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of August, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: ' Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner • 41r.L 7trman, ' arming Commission C. of Arcadia A ST: ecretary, ' a' ing ommission City of Arcadia Approved by: • Steph n P. Deitsch, City,Attorney 1 1614. 138 1 ,} DESCRIPTION •• .� • • • • . PARCEL A: • . PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES., STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261 PAGES 91 TO 95 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY .RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL. IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED ON PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 , PARCEL B: • • PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 6374, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 89 PAGES 76 AND 77 O F PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF. SAID PARCEL 2 DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO THE CITY OF . ARCADIA, RECORDED APRIL 26, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NOS . 93-768461 THROUGH 93-768465 . PARCEL C: PARCEL 4 OF..:PARCEL MAP NO. 4626, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 50 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE :OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL D: . NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS, AUTOMOBILE PARKING AND INCIDENTAL USE, FOR 'H . INSTALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SEPARATE AND COMMON UTILITY LINES, AND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, AS AN APPURTENANCE TO PARCEL "A" ABOVE AND PARCEL C, AS DEFINED IN .AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" OF THAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT 'CAPTIONED "CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND RECIPROCAJ , EASEMENT AGREEMENT" DATED JANUARY 25, 1974, EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, A 4 ALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP., • BROADWAY-HALE STORES INC. , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND J. . C. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1974 IN BOOK M-4581 PAGE 489, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 482, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1 THERETO, DATED JANUARY 19, 1978 EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CARTER HAWLEY HALE STORES, INC. , (FORMERLY BROADWAY-HALE STORES, INC. ) , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, J. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND ADCOR REALTY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1978 'AS INSTRUMENT NO. 78-71491, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO . 2 THERETO, DATED AUGUST 16 , 1989, RECORDED OCTOBER 26; 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-1725066, AND AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT' NO. 3 THERETO, DATED DECEMBER '29, 1993 RECORDED DECEMBER 30', 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 93-2542583 . i EXHIBIT "A" . • • 98 2329402 , CRSO..12/04,91 AA 1614 139 • RESOLUTION 1615 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE Z-99-003 TO RECONFIGURE THE C-2 & D H8 OVERLAY TO INCORPORATE THE NEW BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR THE ENCLOSED AND PROPOSED OPEN-AIR MALL. ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN - AVENUE (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE). WHEREAS, in June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. filed an application for a zone change requesting that the zoning designation of C-2 & D H8 (design and high-rise overlay) be reconfigured to incorporate the new building envelope which includes the enclosed and open-air mall area as shown on the attached site plan.(Exhibit B) to allow the construction of up to a 600,000 square foot expansion of the existing Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita, Community Development Division Case No. Z-99-003 located at 400 South Baldwin Avenue, the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A; and. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 25, 2000 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department' in the attached report is true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission finds and recommends the following: 1. That the request to expand the C-2 D & H8 overlay zoning designation will be consistent with the proposed mall building envelope identified as Building Area C in attached Exhibit B. 2. That the Planning Commission and City Council will have the opportunity to review and approve the specific site plan for the mall expansion during separate public hearing processes that will allow the City an opportunity to better assess the design and potential impacts of the proposed buildings on properties to the south and west of the project site. I ' . 3. That the evaluations of the environmental impacts as set forth in the1 FEIR are appropriate; that with the exception of "Air Quality", this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; that when considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that this project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife. 1615 140 . resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends; and, therefore, the '__' Commission recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR. Section 3... The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of Zone Change Z-99-003 to rezone Building Area C as set forth in Exhibit B to C-2 & D H8 (General Commercial with a design and high rise overlay) based upon the information submitted by the Applicant to the City as of date of this Resolution. - Section 4. The decisions and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the - , Commission's direction at its meeting of July 25, 2000 and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy - NOES: Commissioner Sleeter ABSENT: None Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular r ', meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of August, 2000 by the --} following vote: II AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None •• ABSENT: • Commissioner Bruckner //,,p(4) ,f, ' • C man, lanning Commission City of Arcadia - AT' T: « //i//; i�1 �l�J� _ ti " ecreta , ginning ommission _I City of Arcadia . Approved by: , -j Sekit ,,, _ P. I Step t en P. Deitsch, City Attorney H 1615 141 � I V LULL 4 W. --- ' •' 1 .,) DESCRIPTION • • • • PARCEL A: • -PARCELS 1, 2, 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 23862, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 261 PAGES 91 TO 95 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER. OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ALL IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED ON PARCELS 1 AND 4 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 23862 . 1 PARCEL B: PARCELS 2 AND 3 OF. PARCEL MAP NO. 6374, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS 1 ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK .89 PAGES 76 AND 77 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF. SAID PARCEL 2 DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO THE CITY OF 1 ARCADIA, RECORDED APRIL 26, 1993 AS INSTRUMENT NOS . 93-768461 THROUGH 93-768465 . • • PARCEL C: 1 PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 4626, IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 50 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 1 PARCEL D: I NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR AUTOMOBILE AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND. EGRESS, AUTOMOBILE PARKING AND INCIDENTAL USE, FOR THE INST•ALLATION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ,OF SEPARATE AND. COMMON UTILITY LINES, AND FOR DEVELOPMENT AND 1 CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES, AS AN APPURTENAPNCE TO PARCEL "A" ABOVE AND PARCEL C, AS DEFINED IN AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" OFxTHAT CERTAIN INSTRUMENT 'CAPTIONED "CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND RECIPROClika EASEMENT AGREEMENT" DATED JANUARY 25, 1974, EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, AtALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, IBROADWAY-HALE STORES INC. , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND J. . C. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 25, 1974 IN BOOK M-4581 PAGE 489,, OFFICIAL RECORDS, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 482, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 1 THERETO„ I DATED JANUARY 19, 1978 EXECUTED BY ANITA ASSOCIATES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CARTER HAWLEY HALE STORES, INC. , (FORMERLY BROADWAY-HALE STORES, INC.') , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; J. -C. PENNY PROPERTIES, INC. , A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND P.DCOR REALTY CORPORATION, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1978 AS ; IINSTRUMENT NO. 78-71491, AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 2 THERETO, DATED AUGUST 16, 1989, RECORDED. OCTOBER 26, • 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-1725066, AND AS AMENDED BY AMENDMENT NO. 3 THERETO, DATED DECEMBER 29, 1993 RECORDED DECEMBER 30; 1993 AS ' IINSTRUMENT NO. 93-2542583 . • • EXHIBIT "A . 98 2329402 43ESCI SO.. 2/04/91 AA 1615 142 • • • • BUILDING AREA A • LA.COUNTY •3 • ■ ARBORETUM 0) • LA.COUNTY _3 MULTI-FAMILY PUBLIC WORKS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OFFICE • BUILDING AREA B • WASHINGTON UNION 76 • BALO`MN 7.11.e. _ w MUTUAL - •. 1 III) i ARCADIA FIRE 1111177 HOME T LL SAVINGS STATION No-2 - .1° _ °°Q q ..may.- STATE FARM 6 J r JjJL4 w`IJ l _� �—� INSURANCE --�1 V - L B NORDSTROM LI ��1\ �(L� m _ E:47;/ MUL71-FAMILY \'‘ V —� TTT ' LJ • RESIDENTIAL \II: �P ) Parcel it 1-Boundary of C-2 General Commercial&D W °I J I 7r Pa�jlCOtOIH1 ndary f C-2-3 'r T T n° , ��W I ^_• (� T "� I I BxiatingPRrce12-Boundary of C-2Goneml• - 11 LL II Commemal&D AtcLitechual Dcei�Zone•,and 1 Boundary of Building Hnvelopc and II Special Heigh . w am �I TTTTT New intni . . LA CADENA A�HUE D mme6� d�ei�e eS �i 1�11�— <O® I ' /IIIIITZTZTZTZS—l'iZ II ii° `�' \ • „. 1011 =. .A MULTI-FAMILY SANTA ANNTA PARK RACE TRACK PARKING BUILDING AREA C•RESIDENTIAL Lei, 1 • Ismemaff . � . NOt11tt LW,`�VI °-- Westfield Corporation, Inc. :3:r= ,'.�'., ,,� CD n �._ = � N ARRA L-- — '°�---- a—a '~-r.• ::.. 3HOPPINOYOWN "• SCALE\ I �. snipe ANITA Dsnr-Z t R PROPOSED ZONING/DESIGN OVERLAY �+4F° "" p i CO RESOLUTION 1616 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FORWARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO TEXT AMENDMENT 99-006 TO AMEND SECTION 9269.5 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTERS; ADDING SECTION 9220.25.3 A DEFINITION FOR GROSS LEASABLE AREA TO THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE AND A REQUEST TO DELETE THE FLOOR AREA OF KIOSKS AND CARTS FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHEREAS, in June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. filed an application for a text amendment requesting to amend the Regional Shopping Center parking. space requirements from 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of modified floor area to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area (GLA); to add a new definition to the Arcadia Municipal Code for "Gross Leasable Area", and to delete the floor area for kiosks and carts from the parking requirements, Community Development Division Case No. T.A. 99-006. • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 25, 2000 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. Section 2.. In regards to the applicant's request to amend the parking requirements from 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of modified gross floor area to 4.5 spaces per 1,000-sq. ft. of gross leasable area, the Planning Commission noted the following: 1. That because the applicant is proposing to substantially increase the size of the mall and add uses that generally require more parking than the typical retail-type • uses, i.e., larger restaurants, multi-plex cinemas and supermarket, there should be additional study to determine if the request for 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area in lieu of the current requirement of 4.75 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of modified gross floor area is adequate. • 2. That the location and proximity of the parking areas to such tenants as the restaurants and.multi-plex cinemas necessitates further study. 1616 144 3. Based upon the above, the Planning Commission unanimously recommends to the City Council that an independent traffic consultant review the applicant's request in terms of the proposed parking ratio and also the distribution of parking on the site as it relates to future development. Section 3. That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council - that Section 9220.25.3 be added to the Arcadia Municipal Code to read as follows: "9220.25.3. GROSS LEASABLE AREA. Gross leasable area shall be the total floor area designed for the tenant's occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines, or upper floors — expressed in square feet and measured from the centerline of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. GLA shall also include kiosks within the common areas. It is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales areas. Exception: Gross Leasable Area shall not include (a) service areas within mall `J tenant stores and (b) service areas that occupy less than 25% of the gross square footage of stores in excess of 50,000 square feet. Service areas in excess of this percentage shall be counted toward the Gross Leasable Area." r Section 4. In regards to the applicant's request that the floor area for kiosks and/or carts within the mall common area be eliminated from the parking requirements, _ the Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation noting that the kiosks were not incidental Uses in the mall common area, but were permanent fixtures and simply because they were not enclosed within walls, they still constitute retail space and should be counted towards the parking requirements. The Commission did not recommend that the portable carts should be.included in the calculations for parking spaces. Section 5. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council: (1) — approval of adding Section 9220.25.3 to the Arcadia Municipal Code; (2) that the Council require further review of the applicant's request for a reduction in the parking ratio and also the distribution of parking on the site by an independent traffic consultant, and (3) to include the floor area for kiosks in the parking calculations. Section 6. The decisions and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's direction at its meeting of July 25, 2000 and the following vote: `J AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None . ABSENT: None Section 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall ! ' cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. 1616 • • 145 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of August, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner /7L– adit- C a. an, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTE T: "-2 Secretary, P arming `ernmission • City of Arcadia Approved by: 441:11/%,- Aq/s1V-1 Steph P. Deitsch, City Attorney • 1616 146 • RESOLUTION 1617 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FORWARDING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL RELATING TO TEXT AMENDMENT 99-006 REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 4185 THAT ESTABLISHES SPECIFIC REGULATIONS RELATING TO DESIGN CRITERIA, USES AND LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 . SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE) , WHEREAS, in June, 1999, Westfield Corporation, Inc. filed an application for a text amendment requesting specific modifications to City Council Resolution 4185 that establishes specific regulations for design criteria, uses and landscape standards for the regional shopping center generally located at 400 South Baldwin Avenue, Community Development Division Case No. T.A. 99-006; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 25, 2000 at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the factual data submitted by the Community Development Division of the Development Services Department in the attached report are true and correct. Section 2. The Planning Commission recommends that City Council Resolution 4185 be rescinded and that the attached draft resolution (Exhibit A) be adopted. Section 3. The decisions and findings contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's direction at its meeting of July 25, 2000 and the following vote: 1617 147 • AYES: Commissioners Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None : ABSENT: None Section 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of August, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner - S4E-k- • CV/(A___4) n, Planning Commission - City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Plan • g Commission City of Arcadia Approved by: / p w ))41,44 • Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney • • II I 1617 148 • RESOLUTION NO. xxxx • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION.4185 AND ESTABLISHING.NEW REGULATIONS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HUNTINGTON DRIVE AND BALDWIN AVENUE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-2 D AND H ZONES i WHEREAS, in order to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of Arcadia ("City"), it is necessary that specific conditions be established to insure that the continued development and expansion of the regional shopping center on the property at the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue (the "Property"), generally depicted on the map .attached hereto as Exhibit "A", will be harmonious with the high quality of the existing shopping center and compatible with development in the vicinity; and WHEREAS, in accordance with and subject to the provisions'of the D Architectural r Design Zone regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the regulations set forth herein shall control the development and use of the Property; and WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report has been adopted certifying that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to adoption of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: - Section 1. The City Council hereby rescinds City Council Resolution 4185; provided, however, that in the event there is any successful challenge to all or part;of this Resolution then the provisions of Resolution 4185 shall automatically be deemed to be in full force and effect. Section 2. The City Council adopts the following .design guidelines for the Property. 1. The Property shall continue to be developed and used only for a high quality EXHIBIT A 149 it regional shopping center with department stores, together with supplementary specialty shops and facilities,including restaurants, multi-plex theater(s), a food market or markets and not more than two automobile convenience centers. All development on the Property shall be subject to the specific conditions set forth in this Resolution and all plans for any -} and all development on the Property shall be submitted by the owner of the Property to the City for review and approval in accordance with all procedural and substantive requirements set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code and resolutions, rules and regulations adopted by the City Council of the City. 2. All buildings on the Property shall be constructed within the areas shown on the Design Overlay Site Plan that is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof. 3. Any and all preliminary site plans, floor plans, exterior elevations, exterior lighting plans, conceptual landscape plans and signing programs for development on the + s Property shall be submitted to the Development Services Department of the City. Said plans shall be subject to design review and recommendation by the Planning Commission following. a public hearing, and following its receipt of the Planning . Commission recommendation, then design review and approval, disapproval or modification by the City Council following a public hearing. The final plans shall substantially comply with the preliminary plans and shall be submitted by the owner of the Property to the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee, for approval, disapproval or modification. The Assistant City. Manager/Development Services Director shall review the final plans for compliance with the approved preliminary plans. 4. No building permit for any construction on the Property shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have been complied with or assurances satisfactory to the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director have been made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled. 5. Any use of the Property which is otherwise subject to the Conditional Use L' • Permit provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; s-' provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Building -� Area C [mall area] as shown on the Zoning/Design overlay site plan. • 6. Parking shall be provided on the Property in accordance with the EXHIBIT A 150 I . requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and on-site parking spaces shall be provided at all times for all employees of the shopping center. If necessary to meet parking requirements, multi-level parking structures may be constructed on the Property adjacent to and east of the mall, in accordance with plans approved by the City. 7. Parking structures shall be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress/egress to the structures. The parking structures shall be architecturally compatible with the mall architecture and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City. 8. Any floor area within the mall common area devoted to portable carts (not kiosks)shall not be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance for providing off-street parking spaces. . 9. All signs shall be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance, except the following: a. Two (2) freestanding mall identification signs shall be allowed i on the perimeter of the Property; one [1] on Baldwin Avenue and one [1] on Huntington - I Drive. The total area of said signs shall not exceed 350 sq. ft. per sign (including both faces). b. Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mail structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more, theaters/cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable square footage. Tenant signs facing on an open-air mall area and not exposed to the public right-of-way shall be excluded from this provision. c. Single-sided monument signs shall be allowed for a food market, theater/cinemas and restaurants/eating establishments each containing 5,000 sq. • ft. or more and that have public entrances from the exterior of the shopping mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open air mall area and located within planter areas. The total square footage of each sign shall not exceed 36 square feet. 1 10. All signs shall be compatible with the signing program approved by the City Council as part of the design review process and shall be subject to final review and EXHIBIT A 151 approval of the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee. I ? 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the landscape plans ; approved by the City Council shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect and shall be submitted to and approved by the Assistant City Manager/Development Services L Director, or his/her designee, before any building permit is issued for any part of the project. Said plans shall include or be in conformance with the following, without limitation: a. A 20 foot wide landscaped buffer strip'with a minimum six foot high !" earth berm shall be maintained adjacent to Baldwin Avenue and a minimum 10 foot wide landscaped buffer shall be planted and maintained adjacent to Huntington LJ, Drive. b. In addition to the landscaping required in Section 11 a. and b. above, three (3) per cent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and the planting beds shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area. Landscaping shall not be concentrated on only one portion of the parking area, but dispersed throughout the parking lot. Any unused space resulting from the design of the parking spaces shall be used for planting purposes. No planting area or island shall have an average width of less than three feet. The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must be drawn to scale and the plants shall be clearly designated and labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall `" surround all planting areas or islands. The required landscaped' buffer areas adjacent to Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue shall not be considered as part of the three per cent"landscaping" of the parking areas. Where a parking area abuts the buildings on the subject property the border plantings adjacent to those buildings shall not be considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas. c. The solid exterior walls of the mall shall be developed with decorative landscaping and treatment such as a raised landscaped berm. d. To facilitate the processing of landscaping plans, a plant list shall be prepared giving the botanical and common names of the plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 1., 5 or 15 gallon containers), and quantity of each. The J EXHIBIT A 152 plants should be listed alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in locating the plants on the plan. e. Additional parkway trees shall be installed, if necessary, at locations designated by the Public Works Services Director. These trees shall conform to the City Master Plan for Street Trees and be installed in accordance with Public Works Services Department standards. 12. Light standards on the Property shall be a maximum of 20 feet in height. The height of the light standards shall be measured from the elevation of the adjacent pavement of the parking lot. Lighting shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way and shall be subject to approval of the Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, or his/her designee. 13. The owner of the Property shall provide adequate security personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the Property. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any new buildings on the Property (including the parking structures). 14. Structures located within Building Pads A and B shall be limited to two (2) stories and a maximum of thirty (30) feet in height. 15. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks and carts of 15'-0". Kiosks and carts shall be harmonious in design. 16. The following uses shall be permitted: Apparel and Accessories stores Beauty and Barber Shops and Figure Salons Bookstores Camera and Photographic Supplies & Services Department Stores Drugstores Electronic equipment stores, including video, DVD, computer equipment, communication equipment, cell phones, pagers and other types of electronic appliances. Fabrics and Sewing stores Financial Institutions including free-standing ATM machines Fitness Centers, Health Clubs Food stores no greater than 38,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area EXHIBIT A 153 Home Furnishings, Furniture, Appliances and Interior Design Housewares • Imports, Cards and Gifts • Ir l Luggage Music, records, radio, video, DVD and television sales stores Optometrist/Opticians Pet Shops y Restaurants and other eating establishments offering food and beverage service, including outdoor dining, the sale of on-site liquor and entertainment* l Specialty Food, Liquor and Tobacco stores Sporting Goods, Hobbies and/or Craft stores Theaters/cinemas . Toys (--- Variety Stores Other Retail Specialty Shops, except those expressly excluded Other uses that the City Council determines are appropriate and compatible with a regional shopping center. Kiosks and/or carts within the enclosed and open air mall common area shall be permitted provided the use thereof shall be in accordance with the above list of permitted uses. i • "Entertainment" shall be defined as such activities as high tech interactive simulation games, live music, dancing billiards, bowling, ping pong, shuffleboard, banquet facilities and other family-oriented group activities (provided by Westfield). Entertainment shall be incidental to a restaurant/eating establishment use. The following uses shall b'e permitted only with.an approved conditional use _I permit: . Entertainment uses including such activities as high tech interactive - simulation games, live music, dancing,'. billiards, bowling, ping pong, shuffleboard, banquet facilities and other family oriented group activities. Food service may be an incidental use in an entertainment facility. The following uses shall not be permitted: . Body Art studios including but not limited to tattoos, body piercing Li (other than ears) and body painting. Check cashing, instant cash, cash advance businesses (exclusive of r�l • ATM machines) Employment Agencies . Feed Stores Gasoline Service Stations EXHIBIT A 154 U Messenger Service Newspaper Publishing Plumbing Shops Printing or Lithographing Shops Self-Service Laundries and Cleaners Taxidermist Telephone Exchange Service Vending machines (on the exterior of the enclosed and open-air mall area as well as all other buildings on the site) Section 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon the effective date of an ordinance that reclassifies all or a portion of the Property to the C-2 D and C-2 D and H Zones. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2000. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: • Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney • • • EXHIBIT A 155 • �� V ' H � p • •;▪ sr' .•■ f.:-* vt, •Il iip, . . / ▪ . ' . . S-1 • ' • • S-2 j • • R-1.. ........ if • — R-1 • \ S-1 L N �j. C-2 & Si- D H8 ram . )7----- . . C2 & DH8 � R_1 •712 -1-----�-�a R-1 \\ • C-2 & �t �_� D H8 \\ OR CI R-3 R-3 . . IOW U v U • . C-0 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE• ,r,-- .-1 CAI COMMERCIAL-MANUFACTURING Q R-M RESIDENTIAL MOUNTAINOUS Q 5-2 PUBLIC PURPOSE C-C COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL' (-I MA PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT R-0 FIRST ONE-FAMILY Q P AUTOMOBILE PARKING D i� ` ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Q C-I LIMITED COMMERCIAL C� M-2 HEAVY MANUFACTURING D C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL O Si- SPECIAL USE 0 E5 ail iff p-t SECOND ONE.FAMILY H SPECIAL HEIGHT I� Q R-2 TWO FAMILY. 0 =] CPD-1 COMMERCIAL PLANNED DISTRICT T Q R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY D C8O CENTRAL BU9rTSS DEVELOPMENT • • Westfield Shoppingtown ZONING OESIG A7''°A'S - •� , pansion E1R ;. 0 500' 1000' J `r ',:r' TEMPLETON PLANNING GROUP �1_� EXHIBIT A — RESOLUTION XXXX • 156 i• BUILDING AREA A L.A.COUNTY •lb- ARBORETUM • L.A.COUNTY MULTI-FAMILY PUBLIC WORKS RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OFFICE BUILDING AREA.B BALDYAN AVENUE — I• WASHINGTON UNION 76 _ MUTUAL ARLAV,'FIRE 11 - '. 1 - - U 0 p SANNCS STATION No. 2 1 � �n m.a S//�� �� , - !STATE FARM A INSURANCE E - '� P—a U/..:- i `i L NORDSTROM f 9 =9 B UL z c hj,,,,Il _ UL r .--8 —. MULTI-FAMILY J l�—\ =I ' �,0� 1 CO RESIDENTIAL \ �1jl Peccel l-Bolmdary of G2 G000cel Commeroiel&D J °� Architeotuml Design Zone, I CO w. Q T Z T Existing Parcel 2-Boundary of G2 General LL I Commercial&D Architectural Design Zone;and \ \\ u- Bolmdary of Building Envelope and EL Special Height J n II I �'TT-7 o L Zone contained within Parcel 1. 1 t J1 New Parcel 2 m �Iii __ _ LA CADENA A NUE D TiTZZZT-ZTZ TZTZT2I: mmm��m i� I v v MULTI-FAMILY SANTA ANITA PARK RACE TRACK PARKING :::AUEA C �� RESIDENTAL „Oia1ad MIUMIlaS 1 NrnITY MAP V f, " ------- Westfield Corporation, Inc. -Yam `4e CT A°�� SNOP PtNOTO bYN I a—..... e. Ma.. ��-- SANTA �m D SAI,Z 1 —' PROPOSED7ONING(DPSIGNOVEltll\Y %ALE A Cal J - • 1 SECTION 12 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 25 AND AUGUST 8 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 25, 2000 Commissioner Murphy asked what background traffic count means? Mr. Halligan responded that is the existing 1999 traffic counts, which would be the actual traffic volumes on the surrounding roadways. When analyzing the impact of the project, they took a background count for the year 2002 condition that includes a 1% per year growth factor.to accommodate for background growth. The background 2002 is the existing 1999 plus a 1% growth factor. The year 2015 condition includes a background growth factor of 1% through the year 2015 plus cumulative development in accordance with the General Plan. These background volumes are then compared to the 2015 condition with the Westfield project. Commissioner Murphy said that he raised concerns and the impact from the racetrack traffic and he did not feel that issue was addressed. Frank Scherco, Parsons, the traffic consultant was present. They felt there is a one day overlap between the racetrack operations and what would be considered the peak season for mall activities. Therefore, planning for traffic impacts for essentially a one-day event in their estimation did not make prudent use of public facilities or private investment. They have taken the normal traffic generated during mall activities as it leads into the busy season and used that as their basis for comparison with the activities with the surrounding traffic or the background traffic and with and without the project and mitigations based upon that. Their understanding was that there was only the one-day overlap. This feeling was also'shared by the City's traffic engineer. They would have looked at other alternatives, if the situation was different. Chairman Sleeter asked at what point would that overlap become significant? He remarked that most of them would find the contention of a single day is a little ludacrist. The mall is very busy during the holidays. The traffic does not cease the day after Christmas but continues through the week when schools are out and people are on vacation. Mr. Scherco said in traffic engineering they looked at the 20th highest hour into the 65th highest hour or event period and this might extend to 20th highest traffic day into the 65th highest traffic day depending on whether the project is in a rural area or an urban area. Other than a few days overlap that does not cover that 20-65 day. Commissioner Murphy voiced his concern that this matter was addressed in the Draft EIR and it blended into the background traffic count. Nearly six months out of the year, there is a lot of traffic coming out of the racetrack in the late afternoon. For this issue not to have been addressed in here is a gross oversight. Mr. Scherco responded that the background traffic for the racetrack on a normal ongoing basis is counted as part of the background traffic and is included in the tables that have been presented to the Planning Commission. Not only in terms of today's traffic but multiplied out to the year 2002 and 2015. Westfield also had to look at the related project also being included which would be a full scale development at the racetrack. This was then counted as part of the background traffic. This scenario is there in the analysis. Commissioner Bruckner asked about how many seats would be in the theater? Mr. Scherco said it was estimated to be approximately 4,500 seats. Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 159 Commissioner Bruckner felt that the ratio of seats to the parking seemed odd. He was concerned with the 4.75 blended over the whole center which'he thought would be acceptable for retail. He was concerned about the restaurant parking and did not think that would be adequate. He thought they should look at seat counts in both theaters and restaurants in determining the parking spaces instead of looking at the square footage. He thought there should definitely be seat limits in both the theater and the restaurant. Mr. Scherco if these were stand alone developments, seat counts would probably be the best basis for coming up with a parking demand, but in shared parking facilities the methodology used is based on Urban Land Institute information and methodology for large collective centers that have a mix of various activities. The public hearing was opened. John Healy, 11601 Wilshire Blvd.,Los Angeles, developer of the project was present. He made the following presentation: Security The comment was made that security mitigation should extend beyond parking structures. A security plan is required by item 2 of the police services mitigations. This plan will address staffing and quantity Of patrols throughout the shopping center. The intent was not to limit the security plan just to the parking structure. The structures were the focus since they are the new component. The security plan - will cover security throughout all of the common area. Concern has been raised about the appropriateness and compatibility of food stores in regional shopping centers. Historically markets and drug stores were part of regional centers. Most regional centers built in the 1950's and 60's included markets. Examples of this would be Whittwood Mall in Whittier, the Stonewood Mall in Downey. Anaheim Plaza, Chula Vista Shopping Center and Century City Shopping Center. Trizec Hahn is including a market in the redo of Plaza Pasadena. Los Altos s/c in Long Beach recently was renovated with a Sears, SavOn and Bristol Farms. Valley Fair in San Jose is one of the most successful centers in the country and it has a Safeway market and a drug store. The ability to provide the consumer with convenient, one-stop shopping is of utmost importance in today's hurried lifestyle. Having the various land uses available in one location reduces the number of daily trips thus reducing traffic noise and air pollution. A food store will bring customers to the center on a daily basis and will serve to differentiate Santa Anita. from other regional shopping opportunities. Staff has recommended an artificial control on the size of a food store. We believe the market conditions should determine the appropriate size and ask that this condition be removed. With regard to Transportation Mitigation, and as stated in our letter dated June 30, 2000 to Ms. Butler ✓ regarding the Draft EI.R, we do not believe that the transportation mitigation as currently drafted provides a clear and fair method of allocating mitigation costs. The Traffic Impact Fee Program has not been adopted by the City and may never be;yet it is included as a potential mitigation. Projects of this nature must have the ability to determine conclusively its obligations in order to proceed. The impacts of the project are measurable and should be outlined as mitigation measures. He was confident that a fair and equitable mitigation can be developed in working with Staff prior to the City Council hearing. • Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 160 Questions have been raised about the reduction in the parking ratio from 4.75 to 4.50. Based on 1.5 million sq. ft, this is a reduction of 375 parking spaces. Shopping patterns have changed dramatically over the last ten to fifteen years. As an example, stores used to be open from 9:00 am to 9:00 PM, now it is not unusual to have department stores opening at 7:00 am and closing at midnight. By spreading out the shopping day, the demand for peak parking is lessened and thus a reduced parking ratio is viable. Each of the department stores has a right under the Reciprocal Easement Agreement to approve this change. Their success or failure is directly related to our ability to provide convenient and sufficient parking. May Co. operates in excess of 400 department stores, Federated/Macy's operates 400+ department stores, JCPenney operates 1,200 and Nordstrom operates 70+ stores. Parking is a major concern to each of them and an issue they do not take lightly. The department stores are in agreement with providing parking at 4.5 spaces per 1000 sq. ft. of GLA. This is a common practice in the industry and is endorsed by ULI, ICSC and ITE. Staff is recommending that kiosks be included in determining gross leaseable area. They believe kiosks should be excluded given the temporary nature, lack of permanent walls, and the industry standard is to exclude them. Kiosks represent a first start for many members of our community and, to the extent kiosks are counted as GLA; additional parking would be required. The cost of occupancy for these first start tenants will increase. Staff is recommending that perimeter signs be limited to 4 signs with a total sign area of 500 sq. ft. They are currently negotiating a Letter of Intent with five large space users, totaling 20,000 sq. ft. or more each, who will require street front signage. They are requesting the perimeter signage be increased .•- to a minimum of 5 panels with a total sign area of 750 sq. ft.. In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, Ms. Butler said that the applicant had requested that kiosks not be included as part of the off street parking but staff is recommending that it be part of the off street parking requirement, so that it would.be included in the leasable space. The kiosks average 150 sq. ft. and would require about 25 parking spaces. Chairman Sleeter asked that when the large department stores signed off on parking were they aware of Westfield's plans to have 110,000 sq. ft. for theaters and up to 25,000 sq. ft. for additional eating areas. He wanted to make certain that when the department stores agreed to the reduced ratio that they understood that there were other factors that are currently not in the mix. Mr. Healy replied that they have presented their concept plan to each of these stores, which included theaters and restaurants. They agreed that they would consent to the plan based on a 4.5 parking ratio. Dave Hokanson, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Vice President of Development for Westfield Corp. With a 110,000 sq. ft. theater, an optimum design would provide 1 seat per 16.5 sq. ft. Today, with the stadium style seating it is about 23-24 sq. ft. per seat,which is a natural barrier or limitation. He proposed 4,800 seats,which would be 22.9-23.9 sq. ft. It is difficult to limit the restaurants because they are impacted by a number of different venues such as bar area, kitchen size, fixed or floating seating. He was hesitant to put a limitation for restaurants because he did not know what a good number to agree would be. He felt that 523 parking spaces would be adequate to serve the theater based upon the Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 161 • proposed size of the center and the shared parking analysis that is being introduced and accepted across the board by this industry. Ms. Butler clarified that in the AMC parking for restaurants is based upon total square footage and not the number of seats. The requirement is 10 per 1,000 sq. ft. per gross floor area. Under the code, 250 parking spaces would be required for a 25,000 sq. ft. restaurant. For theaters, the code is 1 per 5 fixed seats or 1 parking space per 35 sq. ft. of or area devoted to the cinema area. Scott Sayre, 444 West Huntington Drive,across the street from the mall. He indicated that he is an architect, licensed in California. The firm for which he works for specializes in commercial design, specifically shopping centers, power centers, mixed use, and regional malls, so he is very familiar with the issues at hand. He commented on the public hearing notice and said that the project is noted as only a 600,000 sq. ft. _ addition. When service spaces are included, the addition will be over 700,000 sq. ft., plus multi-level parking garages of several hundred thousand sq. ft. more. Future notices and other city documents should give a fuller, more accurate description. It's unfair to expect laymen to understand the implications of these zone amendments without any explanation. He said that he generally approves the proposed mall expansion. He thought that the size is manageable with appropriate design. Regarding the G.P. 99-001, he understood that "Modified Building Area", which is similar to gross leasable area (GLA). in that it excludes the mall concourse, was used as the basis of design in the original project. It's customary to use gross building area as the basis for floor area ratio (FAR) calculations. He felt this would be preferable, because using gross leasable area tends to mask the true size of the project, and leaves the city dependent on the accuracy of the applicant's rent rolls to verify compliance. He was willing to overlook this, though, for two reasons: 1) A precedent has already been set on the property to use GLA, under which the project complies, if the FAR increase to 50% is granted, and - 2) The area can be successfully added if sensitively designed. However, before the mall is granted the opportunity to construct so much space, including very large parking garages which do not figure in the planning department's analysis, the Planning Commission should definitely request some volumetric or massing studies (for example, photos with outlines of the new buildings drawn in), to get an idea of how heavily covered the site will be, particularly the northeast quadrant. The Zone Change requesting the future expansion D & H-8 overlay zone is shown as extending nearly I down to Huntington Drive. It is clearly inappropriate to extend the mall this far south. The expansion area should be cut off on a line extending east from near the south side of Robinsons May. As a resident across the street, he strongly objected to this portion of the proposal, and wanted the building setback protected by a wide margin. Furthermore, the expansion zone is by far larger than even the suggested 50% FAR would allow. While the applicant should be given some flexibility, there is no need to designate so much space for potential development. The proposed expansion at the northwest corner should be held back 40'-50' from Baldwin Ave., to create a separation between the proposed restaurants and the R-1 zoned single family houses across the Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 162 street. Serious consideration should be givers whether this is even a proper location, or if the restaurants would be better located closer to the southwest corner at Huntington Drive, by the fire station. Regarding the proposed T.A. 99-006, he took exception to the addition of"food supermarket" to the list of approved uses because: 1) This is not an appropriate tenant in a mall, and 2) A specialty market or ranch market would better support any number of other existing, struggling centers in the city. Adding "multiplex cinema" to the approved list should be fine, considering there was one in the mall for twenty years. However, he thought "theaters" as too vague.. What type of-live performances will this allow? What about noise, security, hours of operation, etc.? This element should rightly be kept as a separate approval. "Liquor and entertainment" should likewise not be added to the resolution for the same reason. Finally, he took exception to the amendment regarding "kiosks and carts", unless a reasonable maximum size and minimum spacing for these elements are also included. It's perfectly obvious from the proposed text that the applicant just wants to avoid future conditional use permits. He did not like this type of an approach. The Text Amendment also includes the proposed parking ratio reduction from 4.75 stalls per,1,000 sq. ft. to 4.5 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.. As stated at the Draft E.I.R. hearing last month, he had serious reservations about this change. Again, without going into too much math, if the current city parking ratios are applied to retail, cinema, and food areas in this 1,500,000 square foot project, he estimated that about 9,100 stalls would be required. If the 10% .internal capture reduction and peak accumulation analysis percentage reductions as outlined in the Draft.E.I.R. are applied(assuming those percentages are valid), they would get a matrix with a maximum net requirement of about 7,700 parking stalls. In this light, the historic precedent of using 4.75 stalls per 1,000 sq. ft.. times 1,500,000 sq. ft.. for a requirement of a mere 7,125 stalls looks very liberal indeed. This is already a low figure, and should • be considered the absolute low edge for acceptability. They should be discussing how many more stalls above this they really need. Finally, after considering this whole process, he concluded that the Planning Department has taken the wrong approach. Zone boundaries and floor area ratios are the wrong tools to control a project of this scope, especially where building massing, parking structures, and mixed use are at issue. The appropriate tool is Planned Development. He recommended that the Planning Commission combine all the approvals into single planned development package. Of course, as part of that approval, the applicant must prepare a development site plan and massing study for your review. Since Westfield Corporation has their own internal architectural department, he thought they could accommodate the City in no time—but they need to be asked. He took the opportunity to look up Westfield's website information on the mall, which can be found at www.westfieldamerica.com/portfolio/santaanita. On that page, he was surprised to learp.that the gross leasable area of the mall is about 1,100,000 sq. ft. (not 900,000 as noted in the D.E.I.R.). The discrepancy appears to come from a 25% reduction factor for "storage" which has been applied to the area of the four department stores. The Commissioners should get a clarification from staff whether Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 163 this is part of the original definition of"Modified Building Area" used when the mall was built. He believed that it is not, and that this 200,000 sq. ft. of area should be counted as GLA for FAR and parking requirement purposes, as Westfield is apparently actually receiving rent on it. The website also states that there are 6,500 parking stalls on site (not 5,700). The point of all this is, again, that on a project of this complexity, the Planning Commission should insist on a real site plan that can be verified by staff, not just verbal descriptions and generalities. This option is still available to the Planning Commission, and they should take it. Bill Klipstein, 401 S..Old Ranch Rd., concurred with most of the remarks made by Mr. Sayer. He felt that the two restaurants near Baldwin Ave. should have a greater setback.. Item 16 of the resolution deals with minimizing the impact on the residential neighborhood across the street. The Planning Commission should consider that and disallow the restaurants there or request a substantial setback with nice landscaping and berming. . . The applicant is requesting additional signs including sotne for the restaurants. He could envision neon signs on Baldwin Ave. and he did not want to see that. The open air expansion is a great idea. It would be nice to have an open air expansion. He thought that a supermarket is inappropriate. He was concerned with additional hours for the mall traffic and the traffic that it brings both in terms of people pushing shopping carts and the in and out traffic. Everyone wants to park near the supermarket. No one will park far away and walk with their cart. The location of the spaces for a supermarket is very important. He preferred not to have a theater there, even though he realized there was one there before. The applicant is trying to extend the use of the mall late into the evening and this is not what he associated with the lifestyle of Arcadia. He did not want to encourage that. The uses that he found objectionable are the ones that have been tacked onto the restaurant. He did not like the addition of on-site liquor and entertainment. He was concerned with the text as proposed by staff with regard to "when entertainment should be allowed".. How could they decide "in conjunction" would mean? He was uncomfortable with that wording. He did not think that the mall should expand and actually be closer to the residential areas both to the west and the south. He went on to say that the parking issue is more complicated. Exhibit 9 indicates that they would be adding a requirement of 19% to the number of parking spaces but 65% to the gross leasable area. He was confused about these numbers. To him, the main parking:issue was not where people will park but the parking lot, i.e., all of the streets surrounding the mall. He realized that a parking study was conducted. He did not think that a 1% growth was realistic. He hoped that the Planning Commission would support viable local businesses that bring real jobs into the area and preserve the quality and character of the City rather than just allowing additional mall expansion. They should keep in mind that the racetrack can also add about the same size retail space. He said they should consider the traffic nightmare that these two projects could create for the heart of Arcadia. Michael Grego, 330 S. Old Ranch Rd., said this is a good mall especially with the new stores that have come in the recent years. His concern was similar to ones that have already been raised. In his experience, most shopping malls are crowded not only during the holidays but throughout the year. He did not think that just because other cities are doing this they should be'doing the same. If they are going to bring in something good to the City, they should say that here it has to be different and still be pleasant for everyone to come to. By reducing the parking ratio, they will be doing what everyone else Arcadia City Planning Commission—7/25/00 164 Zc ! 5-0 1°9'N'Cf 24 f71 +^!:' Ste' rl.-CP.)Laa MEMORANDUM Office of the City A rney Date: September 5,I 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEPHEN P. DETISCH, CITY ATTORNEY -S: P • P.- (Mc PAT MALLOY, PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DIRECTO it SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2121 AMENDING ARTICLE IX, C • 'TAE 4 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT T BA CKGRO UND it recently came to light that a property owner had property maintenance.issues on the side yard of a corner lot, which is adjacent to the public street. In reviewig the Arcadia Municipal Code, it has been determined that the current nuisance provisions cover only front and rear yards and not side yards that abut corner lots or rear yards where the setbacks are adjacent to the public street.(for example, rear yards that abut a street behind the property or corner lots, or lots, which exteid the width of an entire block from one street to the next). DISCUSSION In order to clarify the Municipal Code, the Public Works Services Director and City Attorney believe that a Code amendment is appropriate to address the issue of property maintenance and enforcement with regard to all lots. • FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City. LASER IMAGED c_ . 1 -6-'I oS'G,o - GO • ey w 5 vF ' DRAT& STAFF REPORT T DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT S September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FINAL MAP NO. 53071 FOR AN 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 18 E. FANO STREET. SUMMARY Tentative maps and final maps are required for all subdivisions that result in five or-- - more parcels or condominiums. _ The City Council shall approve a final map if it conforms to all the requirements of the subdivision regulations of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. It is recommended that the City Council approve Final Map No. 53071 for an 8-unit residential condominium project located at 18 E. Fano Street. DISCUSSION Final Map No. 53071 has been reviewed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the appropriate City Departments. Said map has been found to be in substantial compliance with the tentative map, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1999, and is in compliance with the subdivision regulations of the Municipal Code and the State Subdivision Map Act. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should move to approve Final Map No. 53071. Attachments:' 1. Letter of compliance from Los Angeles County 2. Final Map No. 53071 Approved: William R. Kelly, City Manager • LASER IMAGED ��Y! /r C . a��OF LOS 4NC� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I® . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS �• 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE �LIFOPN�P ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 i Telephone:(626)458-5100 HARRY W.STONE,Director `- ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO:„-- —-- P.O'.BOX 1460 July 19, 2000 ALI-IAMBRA,CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE $LD- REFER TO FILE: 8 Mr. Terry Hagen - City Engineer City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91006-6021 _ - Dear Mr. Hagen: • -TRACT-NO. 5307] The enclosed_sub =tract=map has been reviewed by our Department for mathematical accuracy, survey analysis, title information, and for compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act. The map is now ready for your examination and certification as to compliance with the conditional approval and applicable City Ordinances. The City Council or Advisory Agency should make the findings required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Subdivision Map Act. } After your approval and the approval of the City Council or Advisory Agency, the map should be returned to Land Development Division, Subdivision Mapping Section for filing with the County Recorder. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.Armando Aguilar of our Subdivision Mapping. Section at (626) 458-4915. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works RONALD D. OND-ROZECK Assistant Division Engineer ' Land Development Division AA:ca P:VNAPPINGITRACT.LTR Enc. - SCALE: 1" = 20' • . SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS <� — • r • TRH= �T NCB. 5301 . IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA . FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES • • • I — 1 — - - - - —_ -- — — ,ii.)i _ • • • • 1 INOICATES THE BOUNDARY OF THE LAND BEING SUBOIMOED BY THIS MAP • .g FANO STREET +. FD. NA ID NO - - - ---- t iI . REF..ACCEPTED AS C/L N7. N8959'SS 2.‘0017-- 19.42' / 1027 1::— _ '0 ' • fiJ1.94 _- _ 1 .wl i L FO.PK NAIL ANO 4-2'TAN • C.NAB.DES PER TRACT NO. o ■ 1.018. o I! 48025.LLB.1110-78-79 ■ o --Usti_ •11P-- ..::�,.,,,...._�—: ---_ter .r'---L—'T4.lT.`?61L.S.S�.44/74,J.-GU.PB— .—„„ +X._. . _ .. — x :._ — RI_ =, o I._ 1 -- . 8039,-, - W- / N8959'33r 1-1.4 _ :V N6959'39"E 0 a' 100.27 • \ 125.00 I -_ — .__ _ S.2TR.FLUSH.oil ' - - '- RE 16908.NO REF. I W ° 2r• ¢ OR. ACCEPTED AS THE NE C D f __ — —.y - OF LOT 30.IRK. 1/2 OF oi Z I a <} K.TR.NO.S68,M.B.16-198-199 ti ... I y1% .FL4f0YRO ALGe/MT QS15T.c. Q I b2 I e =m NOT A PART cil Y., 5 22 - - I 4, O :::11,-rig g„m C Q 1 \??' En ,°wg.ti m� kk fn 1: m g nQ Z I=,v. z 1 i g_f, I m Q I 4� ,- 18,022 SF. 1 9gi OF THIS I y� < 1— Lam deg Z 1 WLl g ¢ .'° • I � J SUBDIVISION Z , i ^ e o .e Q I g a 0 .' z I RI 34Z • o 1 1 gg I' 1 == 4897710 N89y7' I /101.00' A N89-5710'W Ao • •100.2? u.00' / b F0.TIP.FLUSH. c e aJ g RE 18908,NO REF..ACCEPTED AS A g_• _ 1$1_81' o e - 100.27 POINT ON THE SLY PROD.OF THE ELY LINE 0899110 W- - -—-—- —- 278.88' - -— OF LOT 30.BLK,88 1/2 OF SET L.T'/.(C b TO.NO.866.M.B.18-198-199 I FCCONC NAIL AS - L.S.5279/NQ01f.P ALLEY REF,ACCEPTED AS C/L NT. I sETSP,r.sit' GS,s27, • BASIS OF BEARINGS --�-��I- THE BEARBEOS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED CO THE 1110. 0 N8979'S5"E OF THE _ CENTERLINE OF FANO STREET AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO.4466025.M.B.1110-78-79 I • . I • . 1 LOT _.-. ET 1 OF 2 SHEETS 16,022 S.F. TRACT NO. 53071 IN THE CITY OF ARCADIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 30 AND 31, BLOCK 68 1/2, TRACT NO. 866 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 PAGES 198 AND 199 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDER. FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES ONTIET'S STATEMENT: SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: WE HEREBY STATE THAT AE ARE 11.TE OWNERS OF OR ARE INTERESTED IN THE LANDS MUM NIXON TIE SUSDMSEN S IOML ON NS I HEREBY STATE THAT I AM A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA;THAT THIS FINAL MAP MAP UMBRA TINE CISTINCISE BORDER UNES,AND WE CONSENT TO THE PREPARATION AND RUNG OF SAID NAP AND SMB0INSON. CONSISTING OF TWO SHEETS.IS A TRUE AND COMPLETE SURVEY AS SHOWN.AND WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY • DIRECTION ON NOVEMBER 9.1999:NAT THE MONUMENTS OF THE CHARACTER AND LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PUCE:THAT SAID MONUMENTS ARE SUFFICIENT TO ENABLE THE SURVEY TO BE RETRACED. ARCADIA RITZ DEVELOPMENT,LLC,A UNITED LIABILITY COMPANY-OWNER SfVO�ND so Y,�t�Q ECHf,P�,,r` 5 U.5279 ED ECKERT LS.5279 EXPIRES 12-71-03 * EU. > * \�� PUI�IAK•'� Sr �? • �VACUF SEIM?- NEUTER SOURAYA ONY-uEM 916.0f CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT: ._..S7A,TE• HY. R,M,F AWE.)•.. _.... _.. I.HEREBY.STATE THAL I.NAVE E TRI MEN.THLS.NAG.TNAJ,7 FCPWPM 5JTROIAEVIRUY TO.TH6 TFJJA71TN.GAG ADD.. ALL APPROVED ALTERATIONS THEREOF: THAT ALL PROVISIONS OF LOCAL RUBOINSION ORDINANCES OF THE COUNTY CF LOS ANGELES) 55 CITY OF ARCADIA.APP UCABLE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP HAVE BEEN COUPLED WITH �� yyyy���� AND THAT I AM SATISFIED NAT THIS MAP IS TECHNICALLY CORRECT'WITH RESPECT TO CITY RECORDS. ON THI53TO DAY CIF .2000 BERME NE -- A NOTARY PUBLIC,PERSONALLY APPEARED RAOUF SEEKS ONS WHOSE SENT.PERSOIALLT KNOWN ONE OR PROVED 70 ME M THE BASS OF SATISFACTORY ETHATICE TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE 1111NIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES,AND MAT By THEIR SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE E PERSONS.OR ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE PERSONS ACTED,EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. • DATE: CITY ENGMEEA-CITY OF ARCADIA • WITNESS MT HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL," PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: RCE CR905 -� � LOS ANGELES COUNTY.CAUFORNU THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO.53071 WAS APPROVED AT A MEETING HELD ON THE - MT COMMISSION EXPIRES: .I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE PRENOUS.Y -if�I` APPROVED TENTATIVE YAP. /_ykg7E_ -NOTARY PUBLIC 7-/5-0A .:_ • .91TEO COMAIERCIAL BANK.AS BENEFICIARY UNDER A DEED OF TRUST NOVEMBER 2.1999 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 99-2049702 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNT DATE: SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF ARCADIA • • I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FEE REQUIRED BY SECTION 9118.4 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE HAS BEEN PAD TO THE • / _ CITY OF ARCAIDA. ECHO C/140- vrze PRESIDENT B,P/JN GO-E.-AVP AGRREPAHO • DATE: FINANCE DIRECTOR-CITY OF ARCADIA SPECIAL ASSESSMENT STATEMENT: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL SPECIAL.ASSESSMENTS LEVIED UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA STATE OF CALIFORNIA) • TO WHICH THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE WITHIN SM ITHSON CR ANY PART THEREOF IS SUBJECT AND WHICH MAY BE AUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS `� C (� q PAID IN FULL 1�AVE BEEN PAID IN FULL ON THIS 3 OAT OFm[W .2000 BEFORE ME MT.A,∎KAARP'&'"] .gi.CI NOTARY PUBLIC.PERSONALLT APPEARED IP &N1 C.��1A AND \Pin 11 t PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME OR PROVED TO ME ON NE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO BE THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN TNETT AUTHORIZED CAPACITIES.AND THAT BY THEIR SIGNATURE ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSONS.OR ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF FMCS THE PERSONS ACTED.EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT. WE: CITY TREASURER-CITY OF ARCADIA WITNESS NY NAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS: CITY CLERKS STATEMENT: • • - LOS ANGELES COUNTY.CALIFORNIA - S HEREBY STATE'THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADA,BY NOTION PASSED ON APPROVED THE ATTACHED MAP. WAY COMMISSION EXPIRES: • M.G•[/.GKYE../,Qy -NO ART PUBU: /0•/5-• O' PERE.Rel DATE: CITY CLERK-CITY OF ARCADIA THIS SUBOITHSON IS APPROVED AS A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT WHEREBY THE OWNERS OF THE SINTS OF AR SPACE WILL HOLD AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TIE COMMON AREAS WHICH'ILL IN TURN.PRONDE THE NECESSARY ACCESS AND UTRJTY EASEMENTS FOR THE UNITS. • • • • • • • • • • ‘es_el 4• ►r1' S 1'71)12' ZiUU— a y C.C,t4oRAISD' STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director CE By: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator 6� SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TWO, INTERNALLY - ILLUMINATED, CHANNEL LETTER WALL SIGNS FOR TCM HEALING INSTITUTE (CASE NO. SADR 2000-014) ON THE TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING AT 801 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. SUMMARY — Architectural Design Review No. SADR 2000-014 was submitted for two wall signs for the TCM Healing Institute on the two-story office building at 801 W. Huntington Drive. Dr. Francis Yu, the owner/operator of the TCM Healing Institute and the owner of the building has appealed the Planning Commission's conditional approval. The appeal requests that the two signs be allowed to be located above the second floor • windows and not on the spandrel band between the first and second floor windows. The Development Services Department is recommending denial of the appeal. BACKGROUND Construction of the two-story office building was completed earlier this year, and the owner occupied the entire, second floor with his TCM Healing Institute, which offers traditional Chinese medical services and operates a medicinal herb import business. The design of the building was approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1997 by Architectural Design Review No. ADR 97-021 and Modification No. MP 97- 005. Included in the approvals was.a Modification of the sign regulations to allow the total area of wall signs not to exceed a maximum of one square foot of sign per one linear foot of building frontage (i.e., 78 square feet of wall signs for the front wall for all tenants). In the C-O zone the Code allows a maximum sign area of one square foot per two linear feet of building frontage (i.e., 39 square feet). Therefore, the applicant received a Modification to double the square footage of allowed sign area. In addition, the Commission required that signs be located on the horizontal spandrel band between the first and second floor windows. LASER IMAGED A /4. -dives r On March 14, 2000 the Planning Commission denied Modification No. MP 2000-006 and Architectural Design Review No. SADR 2000-014 for a 167 square-foot internally jliuminated channel-letter-wall sign for the TCM Healing Institution to be placed on the upper portion of the building. This was the applicant's first attempt at a-sign design ;approval for the building. The denial was not appealed. V1/hile having the sign design revised for his TCM Healing Institute, Dr. Yu began negotiating with Merrill Lynch financial services for a lease of the ground. floor. On August 8, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the following two sign proposals for 801 W. Huntington Drive: SADR 2000-014, revised, for the TCM Healing Institute: • A 41 square-foot internally illuminated channel letter wall sign on the upper portion of the front wall, and • A 6.75—astuare_foot internally illuminated channel letter wall sign on _the upper - portion of#die=street-side wall (East side of building facing Old Ranch Rd.). SADR 2000-051 for Merrill Lynch: • A 36 square-foot halo illuminated channel letter wall sign located between the • first and second floors on an architectural background enhancer (i.e., raceway). The Planning Commission approved the two applications, subject to the following conditions: 1. The signs for the TCM Healing Institute are to be located on the spandrel band between the first and second floor windows as stipulated by the Planning Commission in its approval of ADR 97-021. The front wall sign is to be centered beneath the two center windows on the westerly portion of the front of the building, and the street-side sign is to be centered beneath the large window on the east wall of the building. 2. The architectural background enhancer (i.e., raceway) for the Merrill Lynch sign is to have beveled edges to.blend into the wall of the building. On August 15, 2000, Dr. Yu submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's condition of approval (#1). Merrill Lynch has complied with their condition of approval (#2) and a permit for their sign was issued on August 17, 2000. Excerpts from the minutes of the October 14, 1997, March 14, 2000, and August 8, 2000 Planning Commission meetings are attached. SADR 2000-014 Appeal to City Council September 5, 2000 Page 2 of 5 • r • DISCUSSION The sign proposals submitted by Dr. Francis Yu for the TCM Healing Institute at 801 W. Huntington Drive (SADR 2000-014) are described as follows: • A 41 square-foot internally illuminated channel letter wall sign on the upper portion of the front wall facing Huntington Drive. This sign is comprised of two rows of text. The upper row has the letters "TCM in a calligraphic brush- stroke typestyle followed by "HEALING INSTITUTE" in block Roman alphabetic characters. The lower row has a round Yin/Yang symbol followed by five Chinese alphabetic characters. • A 6.75 square-foot internally illuminated channel letter sign/logo on the upper portion of the street-side wall facing Old Ranch Road. This sign/logo is comprised of a round_Yin/Yang symbol followed by.the letters "TCM" in a • calligraphic brush-stroke typestyle. All of the above letters and logos are to be made of 4.5-inch thick metal channels mounted flush to the wall surface. Each letter and logo will be individually internally illuminated. The Roman alphabetic characters will have dark purple faces and returns that match the trim on the building and the trim caps will be silver to accent the outlines of the letters. The Chinese alphabetic characters will have white faces with purple trim caps and returns. The Yin/Yang symbols will have combination white and purple faces and outlines with purple trim caps and returns. All electrical equipment will be fully concealed. The proposed signs comply with the size limits established by the Planning Commission in its approval of Modification No. MP 97-005, and the use of non-Roman alphabetic characters complies with the 1/3 to 2/3 identification requirement of the Arcadia Municipal Code. The locations of the signs, however, are above the second floor windows and not on the spandrel band between the first and second floor windows as stipulated by the Planning Commission in its approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 97-021. The Planning Commission approved the above-proposed signs, subject to the following condition: • The signs for the TCM Healing Institute are to be located on the spandrel band between the first and second floor windows as stipulated by the Planning Commission in its approval of ADR 97-021. The front wall sign is to be centered beneath the two center. windows on the westerly portion of the front of the building, and the street-side sign is to be centered beneath the large window on the east wall of the building. • SADR 2000-014 Appeal to City Council September 5,2000 Page 3 of 5 , Dr. Yu contends that the proposed locations are consistent with the tenants' occupancies: The TCM Healing Institute is located entirely on the upper floor, and Merrill Lynch will occupy the entire ground floor. • Staff understands the logic in, having the locations of the signs correspond with the locations of the tenants, but staffs opinion is that having all the signs on the lower portion of the building will result in a more professional office appearance. The subject property is in a Professional Office Zone and the building should have a professional appearance rather than a retail or other general commercial appearance. Architectural Design Review Criteria The City's Architectural Design Review Regulations include the following criteria for signs: A. That the designs-and locations of the proposed signs are consistent with the char-acter_-and=scale of the building to which they are attached. - B. That the proposed signs are visually harmonious with surrounding developments. C. That the designs and locations of the proposed signs are consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance. D. That the designs and locations of the,proposed signs are consistent with the characteristics of the area in which the building and site are located. E. That the proposed signs are designed to be in keeping with the use to which they are related. F. That the proposed signs are complementary to the appearance of the building. G. That the elements of the proposed signs, in their overall visual design (including materials, textures, colors, illumination, location and size) are harmonious and attractive. H. That the designs of the proposed signs do show proper consideration for the visual effect of the development upon other properties from the view of the public rights- of-way and from eye level at grade on surrounding properties. I. That the proposed signs, when considered in relationship to other signs on the building, are compatible with the architecture of the building. SADR 2000-014 Appeal to City Council September 5, 2000 Page 4 of 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW • Architectural Design Review is consider_ed a-_ministerial action and is not subject to environmental review. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's conditional approval of Architectural Design Review Application No. SADR 2000-014. Attachments: Land Use & Zoning_Map : _ -_. Minutes from the 10/14/97; 3/14/00; and 8/8/00 PC meetings Plans - Approved by: William R. Kelly, City Manager • • SADR 2000-014 Appeal to City Council September 5, 2000 Page 5 of 5 • . . . .. . . • •• . . ' . . . , r•,,, , , . , . . , . . . , • „ - . ols2., • (60 c..,0 . — 14-upj GO - . .i-N-Cyt• ciD,,, •Q '0 .\ 0 . . A5,91 r ___ -_-_-_-_,,,-,-_- -y = _ - i.P Z- ..._.. • °Z\i,;,) ' . . ' ' 1 CORONA-DO 6,o -4 •.:_w. 5 . . . : cr, , 5.,, a 05)a) 199' R-1 . 0, . • 2 Mt, ED %/I 4; . . .... t,5 CD::::C8 . -..)‘... i6.08 Geri NI Oi u. .... N (d 21) ED .4: 4.'" • .7-1 c.9 . , V 0 P , 1.1:> '-'4 0 • c• eN - - i' R-1 .4=. . c3 0 =--IS .... 5)•,4 0 o‘.- 0' 03 Y1 u-, .13541 -4 . ...c, iii s\ •-• . ••• i b, .: 1 62.S'2 _ .! • — - ' ". ' . . ----5\-I' ' ..--- _ ..... Co „_.v.;\,•\,‘ .I 11.50 .G1 24. bi,.• I ul Iv NI R-3 8 0 e ■I\'C'S. • ''‘-'44 :1* 41 -- _ —I---—- CA N...' ..0 29I.9g , I 7"--------- I 1- - -_W3-:-..---'.''''--2.:111/3'• ...) , z I' ' 1 tol N 94, 4,-q4.447b Z !— - • " 2,9,.g -4:::::::::::::::::::::::::.:...........,f,i I CD I CID'i A ' 1::•::::::::.:•;:;:::::.: ::::0 *4 6 1(T14 ' • -I . *A....4fr......:::.::::::::::::::• ::1::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::".:....L..::::, Bank I. EI ■ I 0 \-.4. Tack Shop 0 c'....-..::::::::::::•:::::::;::::::.:1;:il' {'Liquor Store 0 1::::.:3;:;:::;::.If..f..:.:.ff.:.:.:::::::::„... varant • i I 1 I 1 • ti:::::::::::::::::::::::,::::::::::*ig .1- ' . . I r o -8/M) a,• .:.:.?..:i:.:§.:?::........0 80 , 60 t • C72/) 18 9. 1 9 . 'I '.. . • . '1 • i • 1 I HITNTINGTON DR.• . . . I . • , . , 1 • • .._. ,.. . . 1. 1 MEDIAN. . I - i . . . 1-IITNTIN'GTON • ii . . DR. 1 • ... • , • 78.75 78.75 1 78.75 • 7 8.75 1 78.75 80 ' iso.00 • (76,0) <752) (740 ' (740.) \ (728) \ . \ ® ; 6 0 (7)1. V.::_)• ... 0 . Bank Parking Lot i . . ; ' C-2 . , . . LAND USE & ZONING MAP 801 W. Huntington Drive , /1 NORTH . . SADR 2000-014 . • ...• . . Scale: 1 inch= 100 feet . • • . . . • • Staff said a financial institution would require a modification similar to the one granted to Sumitomo Bank. If the property owner chooses to pursue this use they can come back with the appropriate application. - Mr. Chan anticipated that they would be filing a financial institution at a later date. Commissioner Bruckner inquired about the signage and asked where signs would be placed? Mr. Chan explained that they are providing two locations for signs, one between the first and second floors and the other between the second floor and the roof. He noted that they would comply with the sign code. Commissioner Bruckner expressed concern over having two layers of signage for this building. Staff said that the applicant is requesting four times'more signing that would be allowed in this zone_and staff is recommending that Planning Commission approve only twice what is allowed which is consistent with what was approved on the street. The C-O zone allows for 1 sq. ft. per 2 linear feet of _building frontage, and does not provide for freestanding or projecting signs. The C-2 zone allows for 2- sq. -ft._per 1 linear foot of building frontage, as-_w01_:as providing for freestanding and projecting signs.- - - The Q-0 zone allows for only 25% of the wall signs:allowed in C-2 zones. Commissioner Bruckner indicated that he would like to see the signs when they are proposed. Discussion ensued regarding the signage and Ms. Butler remarked that the Planning Commission could limit the location of the signs to be placed between the 1 •and 2nd floors. Staff can bring the sign back to the Planning Commission for review. Commissioner Kalemkiarian expressed concern over the partially open exterior stairway with elevator platform. He feared that the property owners to the north would lose their privacy. Mr. Chan explained that this landing is too far and the trees block the view as well as help preserve the privacy of the properties to the north. Ralph Tones, 401 Cambridge, said he is one of the owners of the property to the west. He explained that the existing businesses have been there for many years and was concerned that the new office building would limit visibility from Huntington Dr. and that would have a detrimental affect on those businesses. Their building has a 25' setback and they felt that this building should comply with code and provide a 15' setback. He did not think they should compare this building to the Sumitomo Bank because that building is on another block. He was pleased that the developer wanted to plant trees but those trees and the 6' high wall would block the signs. He suggested shrubbery in lieu of trees. Ed Ballet, 9702 Ardendale, said he is one of the new owners of the liquor store directly to the west of the proposed building. This building would block his business. He remarked that the trees would also block the view from Huntington Dr. He felt this would hurt his business. In rebuttal, Mr. Chan said they would be willing to relocate the trees to help the adjacent businesses. He remarked that the building is 36'-4" from the west property line and he felt that would allow plenty of MP 97-005 & ADR 97-021 (excerpt) Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 10/14/97 • 5. PUBLIC HEARING MP 00-006 &ADR 00-014 801 W. Huntington Dr. Dr. Francis Yu • !- Consideration of modifications for signs on a new office building. • The staff report was presented. Staff said the applicant has received a copy of the staff report. He thought the reason for this application was because they wished to have more signage. _ Commissioner Sleeter was confused with what was permitted. He asked what were they approved for and how in excess of their approval are they requesting? In response, staff replied that the proposed cumulative total of 167 sq. ft. of wall sign area exceeds the maximum 39 sq. ft. allowed by the C-O zone by 128 sq. ft., and exceeds the 78 sq. ft. permitted by MP 97-005 by 89_sq:_ft.- The public hearing was opened. The applicant was not present. No one spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Bruckner closed the public hearing. Ms. Butler said that if the Planning Commission decides to approve the request, appropriate findings must.be made (listed in the staff report). ` Staff is recommending that this request be denied but that the applicant be allowed to revise the proposal under SADR 00-14 to be consistent,with the approvals granted by MP 97-005 and ADR 97- 021. Any other signs would be subject to a separate ADR. Ms. Butler said that the proposed signs are inconsistent with the ADR criteria, specifically item"C", listed in staff report. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Sleeter to deny MP 00-006 & SADR 00-014 based on findings that it does not promote uniformity of development, is inconsistent with zoning requirements and the previously approved modification. ROLL CALL: AYES: . Commissioner Huang, Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner NOES: None Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 3/14/00 • . NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4. SADR 2000-014 & SADR 2000-051 801 W. Huntington Dr. Signs Express - Consideration of architectural'design-review for signs on a two-story office building for TCM Healing Institute and Merrill Lynch. Robin Bell, representing the design company that prepared the sign for Merrill Lynch, 1802 American St.,Anaheim said they are in agreement with the plan and the recommendation by staff. Francis Yu, 801 W. Huntington Dr. owner, was very happy to have one of the top five Fortune 500 :4 companies, Merrill Lynch, occupying the,bottom floor of his building. There has been numerous case of confusion, since they have moved into this building. Many times their customers have gone into Merrill Lynch only to be told that they occupy the second floor of the building. The structure is very limited and these issues were not addressed in 1997 when they were constructing the building. Because the external-and-internalwalls-are only 6" m depth, traditional channel lettering cannot apply to this building. To have onc-sign on each side of the building, as the modification requires, would be much more destructive than-what-they are proposing. Their proposal is to have the signs parallel on one side of the building. Ronald May, 13635 Van Horn Cir., Chino Hills, said he is an engineer. What is professional looking to one person may not be to another. This is a very subjective issue. For example some one may think that neon sign would be appropriate but he did not think that a neon style sign would be for this building. Pauline Cheng, 25 E. Huntington Dr., a real estate agent, said that her client turned down many interested tenants that wanted to occupy the first floor of this building because he wanted it leased by a Fortune 500 company. This is a perfect location for Merrill Lynch and she hoped that they would occupy this building for a long time and seryice the community. Signs on a parallel line on a single line would not identify which tenant is on which floor. As mentioned earlier, many of Dr. Yu's clients go to Merrill Lynch because they do not realize that he is on the second floor of the building. This has become irritating to the staff of Merrill Lynch. It is both practical and functional to have two signs identifying each business. After all, isn't that what signs are for? David Sheen, 2196 San Marino, said this is an aesthetic issue. He works for a design company that does commercial signs and this is a standard practice. He agreed with comments made by Ms. Cheng. It would be confusing to have both signs in line but putting one on top of the other would resolve the issue. Having two signs would resemble a commercial/retail building. Professional offices tend to have signs as proposed by Mr. Yu. Joe Wan, 8464 E. Elm, San Gabriel, asked that the Planning Commission approve this request. Terry To, Signs Express, 2446 Merced Ave., El Monte, was present to answer any questions. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. The staff report was presented. Arcadia City Planning Commission 6 8/8/00 � 7 In response to a question by Commissioner Murphy, staff said that if approved, these would be the only two signs that would be permitted on the building. The total square footage of these two signs are the maximum that is permitted by the modification for the building. Ms. Butler stated that in 1997=when the building was being constructed, the applicant presented a concept plan. The City's architectural design regulations require that signing be incorporated in the ADR for buildings. Since this was a condition of approval, she was disappointed that they did not make accommodations for the two signs on the bottom by having some way of accessing the signing so they could have used channel letters. When the building was approved in 1997, this was a condition of approval. It may sound logical to the applicant to have their sign on the second floor,."since they occupy the top floor. But by the same token, what would happen if there was a three or four story building? Would they allow signs for each floor going up the building? The purpose of ADR is to have the sign in the best possible location while complimenting the building design. With regard to the confusion, Ms. Butler said that the entrance is primarily from the back where the parking and elevator are located. It would be easy to place an unobtrusive directional sign that would resolve that problem. The confusion is not a good reason to allow the signing up on the second floor area. Staff feels.strongly-about this issue and feels the decision. that was made in 1997 was appropriate. To have both signs on the top would be another option. Staff is looking not only at balance but it is easier when in a car to look across (eye level) rather than having to look up on a building. Commissioner Murphy said the applicant's proposal gives the appearance that only one half of the building is occupied. He agreed with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Kalemkiarian said the other side of the building looks empty. Commissioner Huang realized that there is a criteria for signs. He thought that both signs are well designed and integrated with the building. He agreed with the multi-story building comment and if they allowed every floor to have a sign it would be chaotic. The purpose of the Planning Commission hearing is to look at each individual case and its own merits. This is a well designed building and signs and he was in favor of the two signs as proposed by the applicant. Chairman Sleeter agreed with staff's recommendation and his vote back in 1997. The signs as proposed are attractive. He thought that signs should remain between the first and second floors.- MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to approve SADR 00-014 & SADR 00-051 subject to the conditions in the staff report. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Murphy, Sleeter NOES: Commissioner Huang ABSENT: Commissioner Bruckner Chairman Sleeter noted that there is a five working-day appeal period. Appeals are to be filed by August 16, 2000. Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 8/8/00 • _ _ _ EXISTING WAIL 1H'%2'METAL ANCHORS. �1��J tiiii_ f''� _ IMIN.4 PER EACH LETTER.I�_,.../ -IJ 'I,� I/ II( I' ••I III � �r�,-� J ,I�.�I, {r®�J I .� L"!'Fl E%CONDUIT a 15" I " `.IEA` i$G �)I� �I_J l��I I` 1.I®] NEON TUBING 2' ILLUMINATION I WITH GTO WIRES 3" DISCONNECT / (��/E(_E'�j•�') ELEC'TRO BITS , � '' .� SWITCH • •18" 15" 4° a fi 11'/( n CONNECTION 11�—. �_ �+A ��vV"7 Ll���> SYSTEM METAI TRANSFORMER �� BOX TO CONTAIN ALL • 7UBESUPPORTS I� ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS EQ, I 18" 6'1 6'"8" I EQ. ACRYLIC FACE W/ I ALL ELECTRICAL 13'8" TRIM CAPPING ARE TO BE U. RATED.ASSEMBLY • _ - 114'DRAIN EXTERIOR SOUTH ELEVATION HOLES { INTERIOR 22CA.SHEET METAL SIDES& I ALL METAL rO BE fINISHED .; BACKS WITH ENAMEL PAINT WITH WHITE PRIMER FOR " ' OVER PRIMER UNDERCOAT EVEN LIGHT REFLECTIUCJ II4LTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTER DETAILS ry,4 , .18 et F PROPOSED ONE SET OF 4.5"DEEP CHANNEL LET1 ER WALL IGN. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY 13MM NEON. y , , 22 GAUGE SHEET METAL LETTERS ARE TO BE PAINTED IN DARK PURPLE RETURNS TO MATCH THE EXISTING 4'e" BUILDING RAILS. 3/16"THICK WHITE ACRYLIC FACE W/DARK PURPLE VINYL OVERLAY. 3/4" TRIM CAPS COLOR EAST ELEVATION IN SILVER.ALL ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS&ASSEMBLY ARE TO BE U. L.RATED. I MERRILL LYNCH WALL SIGN.(36"X 12'-0") 4...-.::'r'r, F r 5:T ,,x.,,.t :, - e ..i. "...' ta I.F w. ...•.�c;*2..w..r....'�.'. .yt_.'t ti„l 1 r J's.7 1: ,:^roY., ,..�-?.'1.: 1!. a 1 4,:"'Nc�"E,7,v NEr,y 7 91'14.�1.W�.`.L,,D:...:.r.1','1N 65.f'.Jr wDw'.d.'.-i.,EAd y,:W y.='�:..�t.t.^.-, ii S_•...t 11M�{T.Y.}x.Mr 64Y 4=a"'. y.r Y.F . . » h r t a' s C.� ' 'i...., `PROPOSED TCM WALL SIGN CHANNEL LETTERS r . M ''��'° r N�o�� ., Na F�? - r� a l�.a,, P, {1 4 ` W ,,� - ,,T d .+ i""^.." ' i. �.ars?F%t* = t: %� t k'4n.r• Yr; "u4•r,M.F f Ij :P' ( {: $ C:� .,4 F,t.,. a �, x:«s _ .Yr4t��u� 'E �' k• y:.: ." .4.5� 4- ,T ,� -�+fc r.3 +•T #,y t�;a> il4k;t 3,cM . ,u "T t k4}r :a '11411,.,.�. �,'64n d rT W TL.Q!,�,,� �, v{,„,1)��stry�.,== ,i !r4x i.,u + Tc j�F •M1 9weh SSi�, �, f .., C , ^ .. � ,e� .' ''• S"'�Ei �4;� ,, ��"�R z,l,,�, i / wt,,.�' 4 r:' . � N r. m X .Fz�Nu4. w4V . µ VK!.odai �.?.a �d='?4' i'c •Ym+v rvt 7 E k x�: ps� k ' 1 7 • Yvv {� t � 4,„.h, ..5., yi.B1.E k l.; u, �, .,„, .,_"c ffi iI, +4.1..0V!.;.,... .. !u, .. 1. u,1949 EST : rM af , • � � A ' F t,r S y � � •I' '' / �,a.p' „i° : � ,„*,,,,Ili ,,.x�>xa.tw.zTy :. nrwsx uun� . . " i. — ` 4.1:r. .„, f4 4.t • 2 .t {.,' JZ'' ,,i .k,:il,,5�i4%,A v � . . z.. , � ,, t : t+ f„. , ,1104," i W; ah . ^1xW "al ^ 11r,;1 (J' n ti; ��R t '•� a a %, ,X,...0.' f 1 �Id� �t r. . } , ^ , _ o n .y r O�4 �jaa , ' C r a A *jig,. ? �f "t' 1 s A,'? _? l 4Q -. 1 a �J ' r.l. r^V?e °. x' � G x -xr ` , ,,r , K -; _.0 s i 0' T ,r r�a IP . . - - 1 dr l r-•4,..4:='''),S` 1'. ^i,*.z re f;("4j1?3u ' *41 M 4•�+`a i 11'.' ..�k fia ', 'I .!.?ti rhi . T s u, '�G 1 y y �1q ^iu. . e Y � s _'',--.41�sk:.' 4! .tJ .( SA <<s , -ah J f , p , 'p ,; ,'I>�,x }T ✓ kF ) ` . 'aP 'f T r`iY a F. ,j ,,r,. �1' r '1 ...: i'''''t A n b �1 r:9aU+y t °1'� t4q'41' s f 1 0 r , x. � i 1.1-100-'0 ,• iaq akl?.' L,4, - � _�' .i 1 p h• i +.. r,..,A„.,,, a , 1 V s :-r .r � `; kT : . } N!4 t P. !fr T , 1 qf ( + 1 i$ .?^ p I ' -s ti ; i {fi F5 , }1 l s CY t•r I„ ,x 7 Ii rt r }Ar Y Y . t..R9 ; s' , n,o 1t ' o' aM yL *W.�:n0 u ,.%1.tii A it } E L . } t, a r - - -. t. eri2f 76 1 3W r k ..^` T ` d _ PI WtT t M r ;• '�4 "§ "S" & x-d ! r fi f” ' ', r`• , j! figto t,re i dr i ,, rte si» °""'° `•1 - — , T iq . ;4 ..s.: ' ,■ ., y ,, I:6 yc " l 4 t�'`IA x :a '''''''t7-`3 uf p 5 "a G „ y . - ; �`i E a �e 1„ � '. 1:,:t.,:, A IW , -.Tr.. ;i4 ',aK0- i T 4.--,, I` a - J; r I + 1 � '� a J Y : ! . . p-Ct, c Lg' 'i � c M1 t h6'i 'i Y Pti - a A _ir 7.• a*4 • q '41 " � ' Y 40. ry r t s: 1 a r e^ ” 3t7 _ � s 44 h etl d r sa'' o G:'e \' -• ,,,,T.' . •7 a ,, _:.a:.j 4'17 . :M I PY■I y :s. T; 1 ' a' } ° S,„A k N 9 ,q k, .1 i"1av , "1,47- 7i��. , '« .' T n 1FNRAAYi'. rt ui 71 • R 4 y I� J : .. X " . r •,R,": 'Te• S� . ti V Ee ' .11.. ,11, 4s� 't""...4.-.,umca-sat a M . S 1 1 rti4 n r vS S _- ' c. .,'r t ,h,,f ,q,3,,,,, �# tto ..7L a s - _ • ;F?_,„',,,..z t f:._ _ a r :.N •4 �C F t . �!. £I; , r S t y _�,.r H<%a 4v- 4� ,yy 1r..4t6 L+ .� kr. 4 s1a-� ,w?' 1T °' r i r .t. x ”: « Y ' fi ,p,. t, c 4 '1 I n d{IY 4001, ; ' & ” diaf fi uY :271 3S4...ik4.igta it nfve 5 M—,.....,. . 78'-0” 38'O" EAST ELEVATION • SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE:1/16"=1'0” Job Name: TCM HEALING INSTITUTE _Date : APR 10,Y2 . SIGNS E PRESalDtosgnlOocarovide CUSTOMER APPROVAL 1 ,iG fl Cx��Cyy MFG. Address: 801 W.HUNTINGTON DR. Revisions: RESPONSIBILITY BY OTHERS! 2446 MERCED AVE„SOUTH EL MONTE,CA 91 APR 15,Y2K Customer signature Date City, State: ARCADIA,GA 91007 Tel:626.443.3333 ' Fax:626.443+1615 `Y All above design and artworks are the exclusive property of Signs Express and cannot {{fi�n #3U STATE LIC,#552097 * U.L•APPROVED#E-11958. g UU�#O Drawn by : Drawin #: SCaIe : NOted he reproduced,in whole or in part,wllhout Signs 6t press prior written approve. l CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA Ai io y 1 5 7?=;3 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM glFY OF ARCADIA CITY rL_ERK August 15, 2000 TO: June Alford, City Clerk FROM: Jim Kasama, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Appeal to City Council of the Planning Commission's condition of approval for two, internally illuminated, channel letter wall signs for TCM Healing Institute (Case No. SADR 2000-014) on the two-story office building at 801 W. Huntington Drive. Attached is an appeal from Dr. Francis Yu of the condition of approval imposed by the Planning Commission regarding the location of the signs for his business, TCM Healing Institute at his two-story office building at 801 W. Huntington Drive. This is Architectural Design Review No. SADR 2000-014. I am submitting a City Council Agenda Submission Form for the September 5, 2000 meeting. If you have any questions, I am at ext. 445. Thanks. Attachments c: Donna Butler Don Penman )1 _ -I" - 142 doo hr T C M HEALING INSTITUTE , [�T.r►� I FRANCIS C.YU j ; h ` FOUNDED 1896 Ph.D., DIPL.Ac.,CA. FOUNDED 1896 DOCTOR OF ORIENTAL MEDICINE August 15, 2000 City Clerk City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Action-SADR 2000-014 Dear Sir/Madam: This is to inform you that I am appealing the Planning Commission' s action that was taken at their meeting on August 8, 2000.. Attached is a check in the amount of $156. 00 for the appeal fee, and a copy of the letter I received from the City of Arcadia dated August 9, 2000 informing me of the Planning Commission's action. The sign for "TCM Healing Institute" has essentially been approved. However, the approved location of the sign is not at the desired location. My desire is to have the sign located above the second floor and above Merrill Lynch's sign. Indeed, it is also Merrill Lynch's preference that my sign be located above theirs instead of being placed on the same level as theirs. There is apparently no City of Arcadia ordinance that prohibits such location of the sign. The sign is designed tastefully and in compliance with the size limits of local laws. I respectfully request that the City Council consider my appeal. Please let me know if there is anything else that the City of Arcadia requires in handling my appeal. Yours sincerely, FRANCIS YU -t cc: Merrill Lynch Enclosures AUG U Sao. 7881- 801 A WEST HUNTINGTON DR. • ARCADIA, CA 91007 626 3254°8520 A 600©600®HEAL A FAX 626°254®9366 n %OiliOp �_ ' ftit. 0 sSit∎\`� I August 9, 2000 'ARCADIA r,4co\ j3 o Rl'ORATOP" Dr. Francis Yu TCM Healing Institute Cii T of 801 W. Huntington Drive �y Arcadia, CA 91007 Arcadia Subject: SADR 2000-014 Development Services Dear Dr. Yu: Department The Arcadia City Planning Commission at their meeting of August 8, 2000 cohditionally•approved the plans for your wall-signs: for the -"TCM Healing Institute" at.801.W. Huntington Dr. The conditions of approval are as follows: • The signs for the TCM Healing Institute are to be located on the Don Penman spandrel band between the first and second floor windows as stipulated Deputy City Manager/ by the Planning Commission in its approval of ADR 97-021. The front wall sign is to be centered beneath the two center windows on the Dielop"""` • westerly portion of the front of the building, and the street-side sign is to • sernieer be centered beneath the large window on the east wall of the building. Director The Planning Commission's action may be appealed to the.City Council within five (5) working days. An appeal must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing with the $156.00 appeal fee by 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, August 16, 2000. Permits cannot be issued if an appeal is filed and not until the appeal period expires. You will be notified if an appeal is filed. This approval shall expire in one year (August 8, 2001) unless installation of the new signs is diligently plursued. The actual design and installations must be consistent with this conditional approval. Any inconsistency may result in the matter being referred back to the Planning Commission. This. la not a Building Services approval. Please contact Building. Services at (626) 574-5416 to determine. the documents and fees necessary • for plan check and permits that must be obtained prior to installing the signs. If you have any questions, please call me at (626) 574-5445. • Sincerely, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 ames M. Kas a • Associate Planner Z40 West Huntington Drive ?oxr Office Box 60021 . Arcadia.CA 91066-6021 c: Terry To '626)574-5414 r 626)447-3309 Fax ' A. Dscv °6s 1401 OF escan EMI %,„„, STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 5, 2000 PI"A /, c- 7 -/��, TO: Arcadia City Council FROM: Don Penman, Assistant City Manager/ Development Services Director By: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT 00-002, AND ADOPT ORDINANCE 2128 — AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT CREMATORIES IN C-O OR ANY LESS RESTRICTIVE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH.AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SUMMARY An application was filed by Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. to amend Section 9275.1.51. of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission at its July 11, 2000 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the text amendment. Attached is City Council Ordinance'2128: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia amending Section 9275.1.51 to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit (TA 00-002). BACKGROUND During March of this year the Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. proposed to add a crematory to their existing mortuary business located at 500 S. First Avenue. Staff advised the applicant that the Arcadia Municipal code does not address "crematories" as a permitted use in any zone. Mortuaries are permitted, but only with an approved Conditional Use Permit and based on the definition of mortuary, as set forth in the American Heritage College Dictionary, a mortuary is a place "where dead bodies are kept before burial or cremation". The City's Code prohibits uses that are not listed as "permitted". r\;J4_ li Staff explained to the applicant that although the funeral service business has changed over the years, in order to have a crematory use within the City, a text amendment would be required to change the code to allow such a use to be permitted. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. is proposing a Text Amendment to permit crematories to be used in conjunction with mortuaries with an approved Conditional Use Permit. According to information provided by the applicant the number of people requesting to be cremated has grown over the last 25 years, from 30% in recent years to a projected 50% within the next ten years. Staff believes the applicant's request will allow mortuaries to better serve the needs of the community and to ensure that mortuary businesses will continue to thrive in a changing mortuary industry, where people are requesting to be • cremated and where family members and friends are requesting to witness and/ or participate in the cremation process. It is staff's recommendation that crematories be permitted subject to the Conditional Use Permit process. This would allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to review a proposal based on the adequacy of the site to accommodate such a use and its affect on adjoining properties and the neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission at its July 11, 2000 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the text amendment to permit crematories in the C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed text amendment. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the CC Report T.A. 00-002 September 5, 2000 Page 2 0 II wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative,Declaration has been prepared for this text amendment. As a matter of environmental concerns a crematory equipment system is safe to operate and does not emit pollutants that would be considered harmful by.the . various local, state, and Federal environmental agencies: Based on the •• Emission Comparison Table (Table 1) a crematory equipment system does not emit more pollutants than your standard residential fireplace, or diesel truck. Table 1 E o s . o .y i fF 1�y": 1 *.'11L Legend: Legend: b .51°� Residential - {! r•:li,, Fireplace ..44 iti 6 Lei;"f's, `''z;�1411 ';`?o• EL�,7 DieseI im Truck 47t4 o -I IN 31Lr 1 Restaurant I�Iv''-'1T. ...u5....s�o 'N 2 ,,°' , Jr.�,tip- Cooking 100 51:;r. .�'� �--��A � � Y� � �s:r �u '. Hamburgers I) n;, -' FO l' " r1 h �- , , Per Hour t�Y � 1 •• Particulate Nitroa6n; Volatile Organic JEE Cremator Matter Oxides, 7,,; Compounds • _ 1c -*F2 jr�i3g¢ arA4L-T4If�l�7 d�i,kXJ f�.FTih"'e!!7i1('ri is SAJ.1.•^,iiElr$}all -ml^ ran ggi fatirgag0 r4 a + A1 x-near antes icri t ti � 8T " ,lWA`ASMFF T, :t-1 o1il� r-E pr,.�* 1,3,,n.., •.,r Nt'.:il��'-s ;313.49ici4YYe,,`i,F4Mh4 ig-k Y - -,. : • CC Report T.A. 00-002 September 5, 2000 Page 3 • RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department recommends that the following be added to the Conditional Use Permit Division of the Arcadia Municipal Code: 9275.1.51. MORTUARIES AND CREMATORIES. C-O or .any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone. The City Council at its August 15, 2000 meeting received the report, approved the Negative Declaration, and introduced ordinance 2128. - If the City Council concurs with staffs recommendation the City Council should: 1. Adopt Ordinance 2128 — An Ordinance of the City of Arcadia amending Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to permit crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Attachments:Ordinance 2128 Copy of July 11, 2000 Planning Commission,Minutes Letter from Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. Environmental Documents Approved By: t� William R. Kelly, City Manager • CC Report T.A. 00-002 September 5, 2000 Page 4 bra( zi za ORDINANCE NO. 2128 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE, TO ALLOW CREMATORIES- IN C-O OR ANY LESS RESTRICTIVE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WHEREAS, this text amendment was initiated by the Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc., to amend Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved conditional use permit, Community Development Case No.T.A. 00-002; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 11,2000 before the Planning Commission at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present • evidence; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia recommended approval of • this text amendment; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council on August 15, 2000, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Initial .Study was conducted for this project, and said Initial Study did not disclose any individual or cumulative adverse effect on wildlife resources, and therefore a Negative declaration was prepared for this project; and WHEREAS, the City Council determines that based upon the evidence presented, the public necessity, convenience and general welfare justifies the proposed text changes. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Section 9275.1.51 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 9275.1.51 MORTUARIES AND CREMATORIES. C-0 or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone. I SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen(15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of August,2000 Mayor of the City of Arcadia • ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: // 2. ' IL Stephen P.Deitsch, City Attorney STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ARCADIA ) '� I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia,hereby certify that the foregoing .Ordinance No. 2128 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of , 2000 and that said Ordinance was adopted by the following vote,to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: • City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 2 2128 • July 11, 2000Planning Commissil Minutes 5. PUBLIC HEARING TA 00-002 Consideration of a text amendment to amend Section 9275.1.51 of the AMC to allow crematories in C-0 or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved CUP. The staff report was presented. Staff explained this text amendment and the Planning Commission's recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council who would make the final decision. After the ordinance is adopted, the applicant can file for a CUP. The public hearing was opened. Terry Harmon, owner of Chapel of Remembrance, was present. Ken Robinson, Orlando Florida, representing the company that manufactures the equipment was present. They have a branch, which is approximately 40 miles from Arcadia. His company is the largest company that manufactures cremation equipment. Various local, State and federal agencies inspect every installation. Their equipment is safe to operate and does not emit pollutants and would not be a noise nuisance. Most crematories are located in residential areas and serve that community. They provide extensive training for the technicians who would operate the equipment. He went on to say that he was confident that the applicants would do'a nice job of tying this in to the rest of their facility. All of their plans would be submitted to the city for approval. The equipment has numerous fail safe features. He explained how the unit would be placed and how it operates. No one else spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Chairman Bruckner closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sleeter thought that this would be good for the community. He felt they should send a strong message to City Council to approve this request . MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Sleeter , seconded by Commissioner Murphy to recommend approval of'TA 00-002 to the City Council. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Huang, Murphy, Sleeter, Bruckner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Kalemkiarian Arcadia City Planning Commission 7 7/11/00 !• • ,` Cliapel o/Remembrance, �nc. 'L- � ? •I _ N d y 'fir•. F - � r w�� San Gabriel Valley's Finest "Family Owned. . . .Thoughtful Service" CA FD#747 500 South First Avenue • Arcadia, California 91006 (626) 447-8148 Fax (626) 447-1569 Toll Free 1-877-447-8148 • May 16, 2000 Planning &Zoning Commission City of Arcadia Arcadia, California 91006 Dear Friends Much has changed In—both Arcadia and Funeral service since our business founders built the new funeral home in-1-9-397—Through the years several additions have been built to the original structure to meet"community-needs and additional property was purchased to expand parking. In order to better serve the changed needs of the community and to insure the continued viability of our fiiin into the next century, we are requesting permission to construct a crematory with a family witnessing room. Over the last 25 years cremation has grown from a small percentage of our business to where it is requested by 30% of our families, and it is projected to grow to over 50% in the next 10 years. This request is consistent with natioi al, state and local usage. Nationally over 70% of all crematories in the U.S.A. are located in funeral homes in residential neighborhoods. The State -- of California regulates both-embalming rooms and crematories with the same state agency and - both are defined by state law—as facilities where human remains'are prepared for final disposition. This site in Arcadia is actually zoned for business and has been used for this purpose for over 60 years. Our business predates all other businesses and residences in the immediate area. The two closest residences are in habited by ourselves, as the two owners live on premise. This is evidence of our desire to give "old fashioned"personal service 24 hours a day, and our remodeling is evidence of our-desire to offer the finest services possible. • • . . -_ rcad is P n'. JJ //6 x ;`-° , - �-3:_ Chapel oi emembrctnce, �nc. ' ? c " ._ San Gabriel Valley's Finest "Family Owned. . . .Thoughtful Service" --- CA FD#747 500 South First Avenue . Arcadia, California 91006 (626) 447-8148 Fax (626) 447-1569 T 11 Fr 1-877-447-g14 Death and funerals are not something anyone wants to think o '..anc�most people don't until they are forced to. At that time they are concerned with who they entrust and where the work will take place. While some traditional funeral families inquire and appreciate that our staff performs all preparation work on site, not in some distant"central embalming facility", almost-all cremation families inquire about where this is to be done. Some express concern and some are upset by what is available to them, but the important thing to realize now, is that at that time, all families would prefer and feel more secure in knowing that this would be taken care of locally by the same person they are dealing with for everything else. - In addition, please consider that Arcadia's population is now 30%Asian and in many Asian cultures it is traditional for the family to accompany the deceased to the crematory and for the family to witness and/or participate in the cremation. The current cremation facilities in this area . are distant, old, industrial type installations and are very un-desirable for this. There may be someone who objects to this request because they have an irrational fear of - death, but probably this type of person would not have moved into a residence close to a funeral home. Most people who object will do so because it is normal to have reservations about - anything new and people are resistant to change. However, the leaders of the city are responsible for determining what the needs of the total community are and to make sure that those needs are met. With an open mind it is readily apparent that Tio difference in our businesses operation will be noticed. To further document this, enclosed are letters from neighbors of a funeral home that is located in Creston, Iowa where Jim Larkin installed a crematory. In 1985, the city council passed, over the recommendation of the planning and zoning commission,our request for a crematory addition. This was in a congested, older neighborhood where the nearest house was a mere 10' away. Of the neighbors who protested, they have since changed their minds and are now willing - --- to admit that they were wrong to have opposed this progress. Also, we have enclosed information in regards to the retort (Crematory unit) itself, and to give you an understanding on how"State of the Art" the system is, and in furthering your knowledge so that all-questions can be eased. Thank you for your time and attention given to this request. • _ Sincerely Aft. Terry J. F': on &'Jun Larkin, Shareholders Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. y off,, , File No.: TA 00-002 • '1110 U nb�A , + CITY OF ARCADIA `�„. /' 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE "AT ED ARCADIA, CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVE DECLARATION Adopted: -- DRAFT -- Title and Description of Project: Text Amendment No. TA 00-002: A proposal to amend Section 9275.1.51. of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Location of Project: City-wide • Name of Applicant or Project Sponsor: Terry J. Harmon & James E. Larkin Arcadia Chapel of Remembrance Inc. 500 S. First Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 Finding: The Planning Commission, having reviewed the Initial Study of this text amendment and having reviewed the written comments received prior to the public hearing of the Planning Commission, including the recommendation of the City's staff, does hereby find and declare that the proposed text amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment based on the consistency of the proposed project with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission hereby finds that this Negative Declaration reflects its independent judgment. A copy of the Initial Study may be obtained at the location listed below. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this Negative Declaration are as follows: City of Arcadia Development Services Dept./Community Development Division/Planning Services 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 Staff member: Kenneth Phung, Assistant Planner (626) 574-5447 Date Received for Filing: • ��' • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIS1ORM CAA>oaw28 ' 1. Project Title: Text Amendment TA 00-002, a proposal to amend Section 9275.1.51. of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia Development Services Depaducent Community Development Division/Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive P.O.Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066-6021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Kenneth Phung(626) 574-5447 4. Project Location: City-wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Terry J.Harmon&James E.Larkin Arcadia Chapel or Remembrance Inc. 500 S.First Avenue Arcadia, CA 91006 • 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 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 neecessary.): Proposal to amend Section 9275.1.51. of the Arcadia Municipal Code to allow crematories in C-O or any less restrictive commercial or industrial zone with an approved Conditional Use Permit. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) • N/A 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): None CEQAFORMS/CHECKLIST 07/03/00 Page 1 of 4 • ENVIRONMENTAL FACT S POTENTIALLY AF110 FECTED: 1.CTED: 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. - Aesthetics — Agriculture Resources — Air Quality ^• Biological Resources — Cultural Resources — Geology/Soils - Hazards &Hazardous — Hydrology/Water Quality — Land Use/Planning Materials ^- Noise — Population/Housing - Mineral Resources - Recreation — Transportation/Traffic -r Public Services - Mandatory Findings of Utilities/Service Systems Significance 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. - 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. - 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. 6/15/2000 Signature - Date Kenneth Phung CITY OF ARCADIA Printed Name For CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM «J„ Page 2 of 4 I 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). 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. CITY/RVPUB/2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 3 of 4 • 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 form 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. m8 • 1 �F. CITY/RVPUB%2000/313785 FORM "J" Page 4 of 4 File No:TA 00-002 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,tress,rock outcroppings, and historic • buildings within a state scenic highway? X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • The text amendment is a change in the code, and does - not directly affect land use. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the:, California Aaricultural 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. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or X 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? • X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 1 • File No:TA 00-002 Less Than Issues: Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact • ss X c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute X substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is;on- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does • not directly affect land use. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM"I" 2 File No:TA 00-002 • Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With •Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or X 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? • X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? X 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? • X 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? _ X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? • X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. CITY/RVPIJB/20002000/546265 FORM "7" 3 . • File No:TA 00-002 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance X of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? • X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. • VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: • a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial X adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: as i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on X 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. X ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X iiii) Landslides? • CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 4 • File No:TA 00-002 • Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact • X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? • c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or X 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? X 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? X e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:' t° X a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? • CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM"J" • 5 File No:TA 00-002 Less Than . Issues: Significant • Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact X 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? X 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, X 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 X an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of X loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. VIII. HYDROLOGY:AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 6 File No:TA 00-002 —_ss Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere r X 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)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the — X site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a mariner which would result in • substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? • d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the X 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed X the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0, X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as X mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures X which would impede or redirect flood flows? • j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, X injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? • k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM"J" 7 • File No:TA 00-002 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: • a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or X 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan X or natural community conservation plan? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. X.MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: • a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X 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 X mineral resource recovery site delineated on'a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in X excess of standards established in the focal general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM"I" • 8 • • • File No:TA 00-002 s Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in X 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, X 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, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either X 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, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does • not directly affect land use. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: • CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 9 • • File No:TA 00-002 Less Than • Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 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? X • X Police protection? Schools? X Parks? X Other public facilities? X The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood'and regional X 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 ,, X require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM"J" 10 File No:TA 00-002 Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact • Impact Incorporated Impact a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in X relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of X service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including X either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature X (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? •X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs X supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would • the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or X 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 ,., r X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 11 • File No:TA 00-002 Less Than Issues: Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant • Mitigation Significant No Impact Impact Incorporated Impact • • d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the X project from existing entitlements and resources, or are • new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X 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 X capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and — X regulations related to solid waste? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the , . X quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat or 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, 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 impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Does the project have environmental effects X which will cause substantial adverse effects on human • beings, either directly or indirectly? The text amendment is a change in the code, and does not directly affect land use. CITY/RVPUB/20002000/546265 FORM "J" 12 w• } File No. 2, & 9— a —' v ��` ; CITY OF ARCADIA ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE A.T ARCADIA, CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: ; ---/7 - General Information 1. Applicant's Name: Arcardia Chapel of Remembrance, Inc. Address: 500 S. First Ave. — Arcadia, CA. 91006 2. Property Address (Location): 500 S. First Ave. — Arcadia, CA. Assessor's Number: 340 125 0000 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Terry John Harmon. - 447-8148 500 S. First Ave. — Arcadia, CA. 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: The California Board of Consumer Affairs would license the facility for operation and the facility would require a licensed manager, as well as all operators would have to be lic,used by the state. 5. Zone Classification: 6. General Plan Designation: Proiect Description 7. Proposed use of site (project description): Construction of building to hold crematory unit, processing area, family witnessing area, and three car garage. 8. Site size: /6v'X /g..' 9. Square footage per building: -), ___ 10. Number of floors of construction: One 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: zq car-5 12. Proposed scheduling of project: As soon as possible �M 13. Anticipated incremental development: None__ �_ 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: DOES NOT APPLY 15. If commercial, indicate the type, i.e. neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, and loading facilities, hours of operation: Would operate for benefit of Arcadia and immediately surrounding communities. Unloading areas would be private, out of public view, during 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven days aweek as needed to meet the needs of the public. 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: • DOES NOT APPLY 17. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy,loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: DOES NOT APPLY 18. If the project involves a variance, conditional use permit or zoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: A text amendment would be required to change the code to allow a crematory to be used in conjunction with mortuaries which also require a conditional use permit. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 19. Change in existing features of any hills, or substantial alteratin of ground ❑ iI contours. 20. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public ❑ lands or roads: 21. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. ❑ 22. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 23. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. ❑ _ 3/9? -9- • YES NO 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity;or alteration of existing drainage-patterns. 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. U 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances,_ Q flammable or explosives. 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire,water, sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting 31. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding properties, including information on plants, animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. - 2://(d)oty) Date / Si g Lure • E.s.R. 3/95 -3- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING QUESTION #. 31 The entire site is level and this combinded with irrigated landscaping provides for total soil stability. There are no plaints or animals' that would be affected by this project in any manner; and there are no cultural, scenic or historical aspects that would be impacted in anyway. The exsisting structures on this site include the funeral home building that was originally constructed in 1939. There have been four additions over the years to meet community needs including an owner occupied apartment. The other structure on the property is a home built by the original mortuary owner and it is currently occupied by an owner of the mortuary also. The other exsisting structure on the property is a 20' x 32' garage with an enclosed fenced area. This would be torn down to make room for the new building. We have previously removed a covered car port and a portable building. Since we would also be relocating the exsisting north driveway slightly to the east, and re-opening a corresponding southern driveway onto the south alley, we would actually have improved traffic flow and create 8-9 additional parking spaces. The driveway that we recently constructed directly from • First Ave. onto our property to the back parking area, has greatly increased public use of this parking area and reduced the incidence of on-street parking. In addition, we have an agreement with Elloco drive-inn to utilize their parking as needed. . .this agreement did not exsist in the past. - • ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING QUESTION # 32 Starting across the street north of the funeral home in Elloco drive—inn. Moving eastward is a multi—family home. Crossing Eldorado Street to the south, the three homes directly east of the funeral home are of the same vintage and on each of these lots, additional small houses or garage/apartments have been con- structed on the back of the lots. Across the alley to the southeast are several large multi—unit apartment buildings. West of this is a parking lot for the businesses that face on to First Ave. directly south of Mr. Harmon's home and these are sail small office and retail shops. Across First Ave. on the west side of the street, diagonally from Mr. Harmon's home at 506 S. First Ave. is a small house that has had a commercial sign shop constructed on the front of it. The building directly to the north houses an insurance office and the Arcadia Mailbox. The building directly west of the funeral home is a small office building. Finally, diagonally across from the funeral home in the northwest corner 1o, of the intersection is a chiropractic center and a liquor store. All of these properties have little or no landscaping and our facility is the only one in FFi the area landscapped to community standards. There are no cultural, historic, or scenic aspects to any of these locations except for the view of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north, which would not be affected for any of these surrounding property owners by the construction of our building.