No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 ��_wroukC•9�r ill.ce p AeYe 5 1903 c0`7 i`b unity(41 ' STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: October 22, 2013 TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Jerry Schwartz, Economic Development Manager . SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1884 — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 13-11, ZONE VARIANCE NO. 13-02, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13-32, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 13-03 WITH AN INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO BUILD A NEW SHOWROOM, SERVICE AND PARKING STRUCTURE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY FEATURES FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AT 101 NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE. Recommended Actions: Adopt Resolution No. 1884 approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 13-03, with a Negative Declaration per CEQA. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit, Zone Variance, Architectural Design Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment to expand an automobile dealership with a new showroom, parts and service departments, and parking structure at 101 North Santa Anita Avenue between Santa Clara Street and Morlan Place — see the attached aerial photo, photos of the site, and the proposed architectural plans. It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution No. 1884 for the adoption of the Negative Declaration, and approval of these applications with the requisite findings, and the recommended conditions of approval as listed in this staff report. BACKGROUND APPLICANT: Ms. Victoria Rusnak President and Chief Executive Officer of the Rusnak Group LOCATION: 101 North Santa Anita Avenue REQUEST: A Conditional Use Permit, Zone Variance, Architectural Design Review, and Lot Line Adjustment to expand an automobile dealership with a new showroom, service department with 64 service bays, parts department, and parking structure. SITE AREA: 110,586 square-feet (2.54 acres) FRONTAGES: 252 feet along North Santa Anita Avenue, 904 feet along Santa Clara Street, and 695 feet along Morlan Place. EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: The site of the new showroom is currently vacant. The commercial buildings that were located on this portion of the site that fronts Santa Anita Avenue were demolished in July 2013 for the dealership expansion proposal. Other portions of the site are currently used by Rusnak for automobile sales, service, and storage. The entire site is covered by the Downtown Overlay for a 1.0 Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) and a building height of four stories or 45 feet. The portion of the site fronting Santa Anita Avenue is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and the other portion, on which most of the new service and parts department and parking structure will be situated, is zoned C-2, General Commercial with an H-6, Special Height Overlay. SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Across Santa Clara Street are a vacant commercial site (formerly drive- thru ATMs), an AT&T maintenance facility, the Arroyo Pacific Academy School, and single family residences, zoned C-2 & R-1 South: Across Morlan Place are commercial offices, the Elks Lodge, Arcadia Self-Storage, and Rod's Grill, zoned CBD; and across Huntington Drive is the Los Angeles County Park, zoned S-2 East: Across Santa Anita Avenue are an eight-story commercial office building with a bank on the ground floor, zoned CBD & H-8 West: Across Santa Clara Street are single family residences and a bank, zoned R-1 & C-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial with Downtown Overlay (1.0 FAR) — The Commercial designation focuses on opportunities for commercial development. Properties that are proximate to the downtown area are designated with the downtown overlay, which encourages more dense development than would otherwise be allowed in commercial areas. The site is located within an area that is close to, and can take advantage of, the Gold Line Station in downtown Arcadia. Development CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013 — Page 2 of 11 approaches encourage utilizing the street, and attracting customers that approach via other means besides automobiles. The existing auto dealership was approved by Conditional Use Permits CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) and CUP 02-020 (Resolution No. 1684) — Copies of Resolutions No. 1640 and 1684 are attached. The proposed expansion of the auto dealership was a redevelopment project that has been in discussion for several years, and the acquisition and clearing of several properties were in furtherance of the project. Even though redevelopment was ended by the State, the sale of the properties to Rusnak was approved by the California Department of Finance. The City and Rusnak have executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement, and an Agreement on Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The showroom will predominately be on property that the Arcadia Successor Agency, the successor to the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, is currently in escrow to sell to Rusnak. The Successor Agency will sell four properties to Rusnak; the two Santa Anita parcels (currently vacant and fenced), the former Church in Arcadia site (currently vacant and fenced and used by Rusnak for automobile storage), and a vacant sliver of land along Santa Clara Street. The four properties total approximately 1.95 acres. DISCUSSION The proposed automobile dealership expansion is to be comprised of a new showroom, service and parts department and a four level parking structure. The new structure will be contemporary in appearance and based on the Mercedes Benz "Autohaus" concept, which reflects the corporate image that Mercedes Benz USA is portraying through its dealerships. The proposed new showroom will front on Santa Anita Avenue, and the new service and parts department will extend from the rear of the showroom and will have 64 service bays and a total of 984 on-site parking spaces on four levels for new cars, customers, and employees. The showroom will span approximately 250 feet along North Santa Anita Avenue, and the service and parts department and parking structure will extend approximately 900 feet along Santa Clara Street and approximately 700 feet along Morlan Place. The design of the new structure is 52 feet tall, but accessory rooftop features will likely increase the overall height to 60 feet. Customer access to the showroom will be from Santa Clara Street, and customers going to the service department will enter from Morlan Place. Proposal Four applications are necessary for the proposed expansion; a Conditional Use Permit, a Zone Variance, Architectural Design Review, and a Lot Line Adjustment. Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for the proposed expansion of the dealership. In the CBD zone, an automobile dealership must have at least 50% new car sales/leasing and must be approved by a CUP. The CBD Zone also has a maximum street side yard setback restriction of 10 feet, and the CUP includes Modifications of this CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013— Page 3 of 11 restriction for the setbacks that are greater than 10 feet for the showroom portion of the new structure, which is to be situated so that new vehicles can be displayed in front of it. The maximum 10 foot setback is intended to have buildings close to the sidewalk to enhance the pedestrian experience, rather than a parking lot that prevents pedestrians from being able to view or experience the merchandise. In the case of an automobile dealership, the displaying of vehicles (i.e., the merchandise) in front of the building will not detract from the pedestrian experience. The new service department will have a larger intake area to process customers and will have 64 service bays. The large showroom and service facility will mean more customers and more employees, and therefore a large number of on-site parking spaces is to be provided. There will be a total of 984 on-site parking spaces, which the applicant expects will eliminate the need for on-street parking. The landscape plan includes multiple species of trees and plants throughout the project with water features to soften the large paved areas for vehicle displays and parking. One component of the overall analysis of this application was a study of the traffic impacts of the proposed expansion. Staff contracted for an independent traffic analysis by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. that was performed in two parts due to revisions to the proposed project by the applicant. The consultant was provided the site plans and project descriptions, and the conclusions of both parts of the study was that the project will not adversely impact traffic and will not require new traffic signals or major intersection improvements, and that the proposed parking will be adequate. Copies of the Executive Summaries of the January 9, 2013 study and the September 16, 2013 study are attached. In addition, with the new car customer access on Santa Clara Street, a new striping plan for the Santa Clara Street is proposed that will add a center left-turn lane, and eliminate on-street parking on at least one side of the street. Staff had the proposed project reviewed by the various City Departments and received their comments and recommended conditions of approval. In addition, department representatives met with the Rusnak design team on October 3rd to discuss the project and its issues. The recommended conditions of approval are listed in this staff report. Conditional Use Permit Findings Section 9275.1.2 of the Arcadia Municipal Code requires that for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that the following five prerequisite conditions can be satisfied: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed expansion of the automobile dealership is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations of the site and will not have any adverse impacts to the neighboring businesses or CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013—Page 4 of 11 properties. It is an expansion of an existing use that has been in the area for more than 10 years. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. Facts to Support the Finding: In the CBD, Central Business District Zone and the C-2, General Commercial Zone, an automobile dealership is allowed subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit by Sections 9246.2.9 and 9275.1.52.1, respectively of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. Facts to Support the Finding: Based on the proposal, including the access to the site, the on-site circulation, and the proposed parking for customers and employees, the site is adequate for the expanded automobile dealership. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed expanded automobile dealership is surrounded by streets on all four sides, Santa Anita Avenue to the east, Santa Clara Street to the north and west, Morlan Place to the south and east, and Huntington Drive to the south. Both Santa Clara Street and Morlan Place will be used for access to the dealership. There will be no dealership access from Santa Anita Avenue. A center turn lane will be added to Santa Clara Street for the benefit of the dealership and the businesses on the north side of the street. All four streets are more than adequate for the type of traffic that is expected to be generated by the expanded automobile dealership. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. Facts to Support the Finding: The proposed expansion of the automobile dealership is a use that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site and is identified as an appropriate use in the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. Variance The applicant is requesting a Zone Variance to allow the showroom portion of the structure to be built to a height of 60 feet in lieu of the 45 foot maximum allowed by the Downtown Overlay so that the entire structure can have a consistent height with a uniform rooftop/parapet. The showroom will have two levels with an expansive ceiling CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013— Page 5 of 11 height, and the second level will overlook the main floor. The parking areas on the third and rooftop levels will extend above the showroom. This situation, where one site is subject to different zoning regulations is a rarity. Therefore, it is not surprising that there is a conflict between the differing regulations, and a Zone Variance for the building height will resolve this conflict. Because the expanded dealership will occupy the entire block, there are not any immediate neighbors that would be adversely impacted by the additional height. Variance Findings In order to approve a Variance, the Planning Commission must make the following four findings: 1. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity. Facts to Support the Finding: The site for the expanded automobile dealership has two zoning designations with overlays for intensified development. The CBD Zone with the Downtown Overlay allows for a maximum height of 45 feet, but the portion of the site that is zoned C-2 has a Special Height Overlay that allows a maximum height of 65 feet. The proposal is for a structure that will have a uniform roof/parapet and be entirely on one site, but the site is subject to different building height limits. Because the expanded automobile dealership will be in one structure, the levels between the showroom portion and the service, parts and parking areas need to be in alignment. The Zone Variance will allow the development based on the greater building height limit so that the entire structure may have a uniform height. 2. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located. Facts to Support the Finding: The expanded automobile dealership will occupy the entire block and there will not be any adjacent uses. The dealership will be separated from all surrounding uses by public streets that will preclude the additional height for the showroom portion of the structure from causing any injury to the property or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other property in the same zone and vicinity. Facts to Support the Finding: A site that has two zoning designations with differing regulations is a rare situation, and results in requiring a design that would likely not be cohesive. The ability to have a structure that looks and functions as one facility should be allowed on any single site. CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013— Page 6 of 11 4. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. Facts to Support the Finding: An automobile dealership is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site, despite its being of two zones. The additional height for the showroom portion of the proposed structure is not inconsistent with other structures in the area and is not inconsistent with the purposes of the Land Use Designations of the General Plan for this area. Architectural Design Review The contemporary design of the showroom and service structure is based on the "Autohaus" concept favored by Mercedes Benz USA. It reflects the corporate image of Mercedes Benz that is being used both in Southern California and at dealerships across the country — see the attached plans. The Autohaus concept involves a rounded building with silver or silver/grey metallic materials, large windows, blue columns around the perimeter of the building, and other futuristic design features. The Rusnak design team also consulted with a Feng Shui expert to review the proposed design, and adjustments were made based on his recommendations. There is nothing in the area architecturally similar to compare the new structure with, as is often the case with new commercial developments in areas that have been developed over many years. The high-profile, contemporary design of the structure is intended to be highly visible. Lot Line Adjustment The Lot Line Adjustment is to combine the parcels that are currently owned by Rusnak. These parcels are cross-hatched on the attached plat map. In the future, Rusnak will consolidate the site created by this request with the lots that are being purchased from the Arcadia Successor Agency to create one parcel for the entire dealership. The proposed project, with the recommended conditions of approval will satisfy each prerequisite conditions for the Conditional Use Permit and Zone Variance, and all City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The attached Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project, and the attached Negative Declaration was determined to be the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project. The Initial Study analyzed the proposed expansion of the automobile dealership, and incorporated the aforementioned traffic study. The Initial Study determined that as a commercial property in a developed area adjacent to the downtown, the proposed project would not impact any wildlife habitat or agricultural uses. There is no impact on light and CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013 — Page 7 of 11 glare because of the use of anti-glare glass and the directed lighting of the dealership and service area. There will be a less than significant impact on air quality based on the limited number of new car trips identified in the traffic study and the standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All other issues in the Initial Study were found to be either no impact, or less than significant impact. Based on the Initial Study, a Negative Declaration was prepared for this project. Notice of this project was filed with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife on September 19, 2013, and on September 23, 2013, the City received a "No Effect" finding from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS The Notice of a Public Hearing and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration for this project was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on September 27, 2013, and mailed on the same day to the property owners, tenants, and occupants of those properties that are within 300 feet of the subject property — see the attached radius map. The notices were also published in the Arcadia Weekly on September 30, 2013. As of October 17, 2013, no comments were received in response to the notices. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 13-03, subject to the following conditions: 1. All areas shall have fire sprinklers per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard, and the system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station, subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. 2. Class I standpipes shall be provided in all stairwells serving the parking garage area on all levels up to the rooftop. 3. One-hour rated occupancy separations shall be provided are required between S-2 occupancy areas (parking garage) and S-1 occupancy areas (auto repair) and B occupancy areas (showroom/offices) and all openings in one-hour walls shall be protected by 60-minute rated protective devices, subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. 4. A new public hydrant shall be provided on the northwest side of the parking structure on Santa Clara Street, with the specific location and installation subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. 5. Knox boxes shall be provided adjacent to stairwell exterior doors and adjacent to the main lobby entrance, subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013 — Page 8 of 11 6. An elevator shall be provided to all floors, including the roof level that can accommodate an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) unit for patient transport, subject to approval by the City's Fire Marshal. 7. The exterior glazing of the showroom shall be treated to minimize reflection, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. Security cameras to monitor and record activity at outside areas shall be provided as required by the City's Chief of Police. 9. The project shall comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as prescribed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works SUSMP Manual and the selected measures shall be shown on the grading plan, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall provide calculations prepared by a licensed Civil or Mechanical Engineer to determine the maximum domestic water demand and maximum fire suppression demand in order to verify the required water service size, subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 11. Separate water services and meters shall be provided for domestic use and for irrigation purposes, and the irrigation services shall include a reduced pressure backflow device to separate the irrigation system from the City water supply, subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 12. Fire hydrants installed in the public right-of-way to be dedicated to the City for public use shall be constructed in accordance with City Water Standards, and all fire hydrants installed on the property for private use shall be considered as part of the private fire system and separated from the City water supply by a Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) as required and subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 13. Prior to being issued a permit, the applicant shall file a Water Meter Clearance Application with the Public Works Services Department for approval by the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 14. The applicant shall remove all abandoned driveway approaches; all cracked, damaged, lifted, or non-uniform sidewalk; and replace them with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk as determined to be necessary, and subject to approval by the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 15. The applicant shall determine if the drainage structure in the sidewalk south of Santa Clara Street is no longer in use, and if determined, will remove it completely and fill and compact the subgrade, and replace with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013— Page 9 of 11 16. The applicant shall comply with all of the public improvement requirements included in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. 17. Deliveries and pick-ups shall be conducted only on Morlan Place. 18. New exterior signage shall be subject to a separate sign design review application that is subject to approval by the Development Services Director or his designee. 19. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 13- 11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32, and LLA 13-03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the dealership. 20. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 21. Approvals of CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32, and LLA 13-03 shall not take effect until the applicant, the business owner(s) and operator(s), and the property owner(s) have executed and filed Acceptance Forms with the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move to adopt the attached Resolution No. 1884, which approves Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 13-03 with the attendant findings, and adoption of the Negative Declaration, and the conditions of approval. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should move to deny Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance Application CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013—Page 10 of 11 No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and/or Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 13-03; state the finding(s) that the proposal does not satisfy with reasons based on the record; and direct staff to prepare a resolution incorporating the Commission's decision, and specific findings for adoption at the next meeting. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the October 22, 2013 hearing, please contact Economic Development Manager, Jerry Schwartz at (626) 574-5409, or Schwartz@- ci.arcadia.ca.us. Approved: dr Jim K_1ma Co,v unity Development Administrator Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information Photos of the Site Proposed Plans Planning Commission Resolution No. 1640 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1684 Traffic Study Executive Summaries Lot Line Adjustment Plat Map Initial Study and Negative Declaration 300-foot Radius Map Resolution No. 1884 CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32 & LLA 13-03 101 North Santa Avenue October 22, 2013—Page 11 of 11 • _ V n d ..\�' f a P 6 C) co g * M A v _ a ell , s I� & 0 3 A l € E °, i E 1 1 e a b �' E) C 'c L a 1 ■ ■ � ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ li ■ !16 ■ O Ly Z �- ;xv a a" a. '" - - g w �r " ter - o � .1 c e d s, r 3)� .. re At z «. , « m o a gr a .. •. " € 5 x,, k Ha' - "Ff O LL yeV . i s ) ' } f": ' 'v i Ep^ 7 � $ 1i � p )� g 'Y yp#. yd9 ¢5 C,` IF e n . ao s �'� ,— 1 q °y `m ". "� a /, ao 6b '� .. v r Q � � aE Q .t ;� § *� 2 a •_ * *. )F o lia C) y a � r ? �' "y .n r s " ' o c - �` _ yaa t „.''*':.t4.,.:.. .,�« a N fn I r• fly - - `�,, , r.. ,”" la to ?• : m a 3 CO '+ �' S yd x i ... w r t 1 g ,e Ll=1Y-I :3 i 4 0 t , �$# Y 0 rti 0 , Q li,, 1-- h ., 1 CO + O , t It, ,, ' ce , e L._ ,. -i- z I Y V: , - Q F- 1 k . S4 L , 0 0 1,' ft z . 1,,,,,,.,, ,,,„„ w .. , , ,. v! .. . ,,„. < w I .,t, f , ,,,, 9 .. ,, p ,1. ,, , ,, \., •,,, ,,„,, i �I i , ,, It , , , , . , ., ,.. „1, , , , ,„ ,, { It, t4 1 reio 7. O ,; a fit, 2 , �x: 7 ° ; , s 3 W s ,, Imo-- , . s' y i+ . F 1 k +Gx r7t � z p i `R l' y , 3 W A k t� , ;P R / *14'44'1,4 84. 8i 88 4.4'4.4,,- ;- 3 1 I ,'° f k t t Y gr . z k ,5;' 4 fi* f>T. "u } n g r t q` i' ■ 8 4,,,,itianswiaminPolil ' , . < . . : . I �� % - ? r It � ` . . \ \ { 2 { �§\� � f \ rx \ l _ « o Q :! , \ . w 2 0 ek . co k ti \ '/ 5 ' V: Ilf »= \ I l , \ a ; / 4 ° d J , i k \d ? 1. R ?vs h t r a� t y 40 "'' i''u r m �' r t ris p' A A° . , "'"4 ' .. T., { ? w=. a ,.:. '#xi , es r.-....--.2'i'''''''''....;"? r .,i Aft _......,....- li 116. . . • y e , VIEW FROM SANTA CLARA LOOKING SOUTHEAST N Z a 1,j,j -,•27.z.. CO ® 10 4 0, co w ',,,) 0 t-_,......, • a 11 ,. . ,.: .. • _ . . 12 •.* * -1...-'um •w.--if • 0 LL1 () Z ® * A • V ' . ' • •'.1 ' "4;0 '•.* -1. . •.) • -..0 —J \ * ' •-•* CICID -.' * *•' 0 , UJ a. ''1 ' t::: ,., ** • .0,,, m 2 ',..0 • ■ -■ ',0 - ■ , ■111111t■'s-.''1 . 401"'''1 C7:12)14.4j 0 0 . 4■ -w •\% • .\ < _JO ... A. " ,., , _\ ' ctrzc:44 *pi # . 0 \, . -, < > , ..0) le• ir •:,, ...• • - - - ---com cm i-•----(' '''' ' 0 1-1-I '\ 11 c A p)P t ,i1 74 •:,;'''':-.7 k,.c'''til l'1' z r fi. sss f •As§sFis i < • - , . _ '):, .11.'.'.'.1`.‘.-...:. .h k®-s.'%. ■.j'r>,)"'W;‘:-'tr:/ $l1i1r`, II i s, 1 ■i M / i --- 0 r RRRRR - ARR i Cr - i , t• •-z•---- ---- .I ,L.,. 5- - - 1 ! . 11 d? IhIshi. • . .. 8 . t ..,. \ t ti • ,-.12'..-L• .::;- Ji L_ 1 Mil 1 ilig!! i A, 0 ■. \,,4 i . 0 ..,;.- ,• viA , a , H. 0', 2s)‘, . ttig A atOciolVA, V :li 0 /A:.•, . 5%, o „ ff . '\‘' 4. , • if* ---' \ h , ' 0 , -',, ."ie. - . 14,,,,a-; ■ ,. _ - ., e it, \ '• tl t , .2C,. ....ii . .- • ,„ a't. • • • , 6 0 7,'e. '.t_l, ,k4V1:. .,,, ix--; 4, • , • \ ---• ,9, ® %,,. ''.. ,\ \--A • ' '■' ' ,.-A.,, ''.:-. .-A. , \ / li i, /=•---1,-.', \--- . \ . ., . ,. / 0 /'.,'• • -.V:\ \1,----': ,ttl* . ) / . - 0 ,„ \ =•-"f c:k:\ \,:•A' ——?), .,./ ,-% • -' -, 0 / @ „,,`, . -,.4,.--',„ % -1),,,,„.----',., ,,\ 4. \ ,/- „, -').. =----T..,„ \::- -,.. .' ..,..,:--,4,,‘,,, • 1 "Irot 42. ' tr$ 0 H /'. /-i,\ N ° 2.\:,:--- \:-.s:',.:: - 11 0 J \ " -,' •-, ,I ,...:*/ li \, 11,11 e% . _ TL I 1 o J L_________1 - i /\ 1 , N Z CD C/) 10 — LLJ C:I 0 0 LLI ® 0 Z 1 0 r Ce < , '' '` LI a_ % t, ...7,-,:-.......g.„17 4, § ip. 2 (\,1 ,e •% to, IP tit.ir,Ir.w. s**4.•..1.4 1 0 S 4, So 4,0 * .1 ' < CD ..." --I s * 1 GD CD W Cp ),.:/•ii7/ < > 0 W --,..4/ W -I -/I4 1 Z < *lit)INT w, , WIWI „i © 8. €3538 53 7453§98.9 i Z a s S ga to.. , • . ,. , 1 5p... '‘•. - acaro , • --.. - r iffi gg k 113, 1 i 1 1 EAI ligt —— ” i 1 ''15. . dr ... -- th t 2 g 8 I --'--a Nil r . 0,..... , • • A 1 .,- ••,' 0 " - e - / .■ ,...r- , 0 % i"-7', /.-. \ 0 .,/, ... ..- , 0 Iti"./;■ IV\ I , \ 0 st/' li s IV 0 Itr. 0 ,-- IV / 0 / / - /. lk;\ 0\ ,. . _ —— 0 VV 0 10 4.41 — II 0 0 \ eV 40 Eio 00 o 0 c., f N Z LLI w CO ® Q ® W U z Q W 2 co z Q o Q w Q > U LU o® ® Q CD RFR528 8 XR§88' i Z ® \ R RR 8 \ WAIIV D ® ® li R R O � R g8$° p H i' RRRRR «RQ 115 Olg, // �� VU W �ggE �F -C1)/ 0 to <C\ . O /// O // � / � o // ° ° / /// �j O /° 0 0 1"\\\\} 0 0 0 0 00 Z a w -._ m u) E w ® ® o ® w o U Q o Y• _-L-- -r__ Q W d. ® >' Q 02 < f ® Q ® U 7' cc a ® t r 0 RSS888 st XR18ae i Z \ N 0 aP i § R RR 8 r 0 d R 8 R yg R R .8_888 n 0 O hiI Di 0 ( — — ® \` ,\lit 0 \\7 -/ •\ 0 , \ „-,.0 \ / 0 \\!>" 0 \\ /i �� ® \ j/ �j 0 , 7 A 0 , ,..>„ 0 \\ // �// 0 \ �/ o \ / O ` o 0 \et/ `O \\\ O \ O O O O O ct- Q r N Z W 1r1 a� .1. //W NJ W W U z 1 e w Q - w ".q g < 0 Q i Q U) ;__. Z 0 3IWVJJNVVINVSN o Q ,�:;;; M ., F �I 1 , � `�- ! ' I 0 (, � Z 0 r! 1 1 I- -__ _1 wX M, W U} - U (/) \ �X 31 312 M. /` , Ww W c A ., 4 45 cto `l eh in fW M \® sea_S r _ el _ N Z ' w . m W 0 w U Z W O 2 Q Zrio 0 x11111- 3 3 VIIIIr 0 "Ill. i 1 ai Y w E. iiiul�m uluul:0 < I- MIN . ■I■ Z x 19111■a � w J 1 IliuFM ,[ -a < ggggll:� 1, 111-=i° li r' > e in \ O = 91 Imp 1 1 ... allll u.: 1- i , li Ill9i i III $ 1111Iru 111 .i-.k . Rip ... - e `-1 Hill II hi 3 Q.___i IIMI ' III1r� ii3i: 111111 as 111111 NI 1111 1 V431331:-.... iilli 121: 1 ' !1 gggggl Inarr Mil .,,,„ III !: t. UM ii■ I I 11111111 WM= ' MINI . s ;IMO M4 € rT ; : t N°1 . rrrrnm� r 1, min °- f! •.1. it • ,;ri, 111111 I ;4 T� _ ggg Ma i 1,111 rrlrlr..S g 111111 - _ I@ * . •q bill } LI-.: `...,.�++ # 1 a �u GG IIY�_ q w 'VIII� 6 a. = w oy .a s .-c t9 a . ' Q $i CO R Ni 2i N Z Z Z I dra 0 u j ...:: R. 111 Milli .011 80t III IIIIIIIIIII --- > 111111 IIIIIIIIIII•• o 1111111111111111 w CO u) W HI 11111111111 w 11111111111111111 0 .1 1111 11111111111 111.- mi ..-- -_- . w IN iiiiiiiiiis, 1111 A w - 0 z III IIIIIIIIIN - — o mil illiIIIMIN,--------- i---- 0 ct 0 1111 11111111111 — U-I =Bp I 11111 IIIIIIIIIII F.-----....:7 [t — 0 LLI I- 1111 iiiiIIIIIII < 111111 11111111111 I — 111111 140. ---r.—.7. I Ng __1 0 z 1-1-I 111111 I.1111111111111 ____ :, --4.. 111111 MI11111111 11116:;' I „a ,. w < w IiIii;;;;;IIIIIii 2' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. lonsiFf 1 .7.1 .1 a 05 mill minim, in 1111111111111111111 r."'"• Ill' t11111 minim! II — . --■..., ....„.1, < z 41111 11111111111 - IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIM - ....r.."1M■ 0 0 1H111 111111 11111111111 X P: !DM 1110iiiin . ILI -- ..,„ ,,,, ...ow, mu. I lir tt,lowl_. ilill olli. 141-0- !----1. < < 111111 inflow, ------_,- Iff.rszr"--- --_-_ 111111!minim 1111 IIIIIIIII 111111111111 - ii IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM, Y > < LIj_i 1111"11111111111 II ..1111■1 .- 1111 11111111111111111 .1.... far"" Z u..1 U) o 1111 1111111111 1111 ---..._. . 1111 11111111111111111 NB ...... 0 w 1111 1111111111 16 1111 11111111111iiiiii NEI Mar CC 0 1111 1111111111 111 _____________ 1111 1111111111111111I 11111 MOM IT CC 1111 1111111111 MIL , _ qii oniiiiii --- --- ., < __, !HI Iiiiliiiii Rinno g , Iiii z i lip n , - 111 11111111111111111 w i 111111111111111111111111 1111 ImilmliiiIIII HIE nab; IIIII!!!filluili _______-_____ clicinital mill moor u iiiiminm gin Egni_k: imllifill 1111 11111111111m glmi //gip : ,......." 110 11111111111111111 I'' NNW : 1111 111111111111100 was Inn...i, 'WM11111111111 .".7 .- :111114111111;;;;;11'; IIIIIIIIIIMIligli Mal MIK ' 101101000101111111 III 1111111P64, f 11'121112T 111110110101111111111 , 1E1 IIIIIIIIIF § 111111111111111111 qiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIffillil In MIMI PT i' 41111111111111111 -----L- .-- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "MI 111.1.4 IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1 111 1111 MIRY ., 111110000101 111111010011111:!"!! Nom 11111111-! !0111111110100 Pill • . sommilii NB Ismi ' 1111111111111111111111 __MN , • 1111111111111111 111111111111111111111 1111*--- 1 1111111111111111 ill ' le 1111111111111111111111 2=511111111s11: a 1111111111111111 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 111111111111.0 -4 1111111111111111111111 in I - 1 1111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 g IIIIIIIIIIIIiiii it a 111110111101111 til 11101010011011010 11..........,- ....0.1 Elmisit 1.111!!!!unini Iiiitiliimai 0 1111111111111■111111111 iNg11.111-111111Ka IIIIIIIIiimiliiiiiiii linos KM- 11:::1111:1111:11111::: •im■- .1—__..—p--- ::11 MI111111111111111 .„1■1„„„1,.1,.. 1 IMMO MI"' t Illillillillnilli .. I I 111 IRM-144A 111-0111 iniminlimul — , -1 INNill.V..--.Vr, I 1 '' 11 I Lim...1=_-. Numii , .,...........„____.____ no■ammemminn R■iii_i_m_i_wwwwww II 1 i iring. 114.1.1211--.ara:1111 % I! -!: a m-m--------mr....,....... ! _______ , ■• "- Mgt '.1 .. ° iim? . ' '—'—^ . . ,.. wiNIENNE 1 ;i ii ill q 11 H 11 1` --, I „. i ---- i I LT::E si i i, 74' an r■ <It ,. - . ... ... .. . . . . . .. . , . , .. _.,.., • t • .•:; _ • ... . , N -..:.• . ... ... ,• , ..,.._.. Z `.....,?:-.-. • , ••••,..4:, .,:t..,. ,.• , : •. ,.. . , , . ..:,.;.,. .. . • • . . 03 •.'l.,•1:4•: , . ••••'•',..,s.'.. • ,.?..•-••••• : • .. 13.,,,,-..: •-•-'..• • ,. :••••• , .....• . ....i•••.s.::• ••'.1,.:: . Cl),. - ,,.—.-.. , ....• , --.,-----.. :•:;•--.?:-- -s,,•••• - ,,,,,s ...?.e.1-...•'• - ••,-...1,..-..,_„.,.,-;,•1,. t-, -,; ,f.-s,,,,,, ... :;.•••••,.... . ::.• •,....:••,,,,•:., 1,::.. , • -• '•'-''-.'-.47?--..?.:-,-;„::'-'-',., ---•.- '..: ::••••• •.• •• . U.I . • ..,...,..,--...•-,'-': ',.•-'..:, .: • -;',,,,,-,:•4.,,,,,,,, .', ." ' •••••• • '• ! • :. • '.., '•••••.•::'•',0 - C) c'S , . . ... ,. . , .. .., . '-•, .,-,,-tsy4-.„ ' •-,'-'.:•: .,„::•• .,. , . . , , • ... , ,-,... •7;-,,,,,,:.;.-,,--(-..-.--,',•=,,,,, i,-.•,,• •-- • ','s-,,,:f:•,,,,•••• LU-::.,--..;,=:',,,'K,,...e:.-4.,'.-•,"::•"--17'••:-,,•`--, -:•',,,..-Ii.' ...•:..- •. -,,„, _.- - ' -••• ‘1(4,4' . - - ..-- 2 > . . , ..,..,„,•il: iLl '' '-',..:_,,,:-,,,:•"`-....4.:',';,.:-.N.,-,-;`-- • - . - - - . „ , •-,:,..q. --I-: ,-. '1:.-.•-..:',,-;!--',--i..t':_.,-.-. .. ,, s ... _. . .,.. -.-,,.,;:",',;--;.;-,'..41,-•-•,-.-3-'7.-1,,Y.,:',•-!, -.-: .. - •.:*.•,,,,e.:..e...,:. ..,;.::,..;...;,.4.,t,--- -- 4...'.. ■:- -• a ,..-':-..,i,:-,-.',..:.!;,74;( i'-i,2,,,,..,'Ai.,.' ••., '-,-4 i.,•:...,•::',..:•I :.k....ii:;:r• , , .":•• -• _ ,_,,,, ,,,..',..:•.,• < 0 , 0 o , cc rt . _ . .. . . . . , ., • ., .. , . , , ......',,j,,,LT- •i-,-,-,,,,,5,-,,i,,..-,':L. 1101.— ,5;...-4•Yirr'F%-,,.N.y •-•4"V'•-•••'" . "!*•---41.7i1:441 t . ' .:'"4" , -... < i 0 -.'-r-.`..:4. • 4111117---f 7 1: . • - . . ... ... . < z (/) .......,.. ,_,;'•-„,-:: ',:,,,,,.4',...:, .,. . . - " : '. - • ' . ..', 1.•-:'''_ .. ... : . ...."'•i0-4' cn -.-7-_-,-; r.,„......,i,.. ,,-,s,4.'..'•)".••''••:-•''. .;,N_'••:q•'i:., ''''''.-4:,;:•,'',,-.,* .';‘ •:•• -,.• =; •. . X ILI -L-'5'.i••• • , . ...'':',:',T.-s--"''' ' ' '0E-4 '...,.• — . . • •••-:..k:',5:5,:. ''' -'..'•'C ''''''',"Cil;•'',•-fi‘•---.C..'"^','• . • ,...v.t, , 1:,'.':,-,4•'.....0-p>...x••• • • .;t:T., -.' , •, . t• •• . ,... . f • .; . ,, I. .4,, . • ---:-- :,: ..0. !--t.,-- .. ...--..,...., - ( 4 .,- ....,.e,.:,..,.. -.4,. , .. !, :-.- - . _ --,--- •. - •• , . .. . . . .... , . •. , . . ....•,..• . . .„ .. ..,.. .......:..... . , •,• . , - '.- , • , ... ....., ., . . .. .,5 .:•. •LL, . :. *. ,5- - .. .•.. ,,.,5 .. • ., •••. , . .• ,.. -:,....„... •-',.. .1 Z'C -S.,-''• -- -"4:70 • . .,-: , " • -AziA.?",,-.., ,-,5 • • ..-''•.-,.- . 1 '' t....'s..1.‘4 tei,,, • •. +--. , , --.;- ',I • ..,,,,.k.5..-;..-::'.....; • .-. •1,,,- • I ,.„,--: :.:Ile':.vkii-- • ••••':••:'•'•— " •• ';';;....f .'.....--.-- -•6' ••:- e!r, Ellin .. .,. ;.1.7. .• • ...k!i.4::.."--- -Y.:';'. '• ....-,2;•• • i, --,L- :•...:;;;t;.»;':•'.'..4- . ......1.--1'-',.„.y.x.,----09r - ''-'-'•••••-' - •• ''':•'.. i;•::.,;'il..:=.,''''./e•-•-,. l•-- .-4.-'-r?'--'.•'•:.•'-4 •• -• • • -;.;'''':fi'f i''•!:4-1:::".#44::-''';'-'• •• : , o :. 1 .`;-:'C.-....5.■.'!...;?:.c.t.,lit..r,„.;_ .g.:•-.,••.,,, .••. , t ...4., ..!..„.164 ...:,,..,..-:•.:...0.,;1:1..:•xt• • . ..-4 • • ,y....,..-.0.,......,-tt.,0! . ,, . i •,. 1 • ',i- • ..,‘''.;•,:s.4i,f.:!'••••! ',44 • ... -.' . ••••• • .. ,...'....:..:•.54-4,..q.:", . ...!.-.:• .- i .•./ ,. •..., . --t •,.:.!.......i..31,,,,14,4,. • •• • ••:•••••••••4•''' ' ...:.,--''..-eef,:t..5373:2•1,: • • • ••--•-•‘.':'•!1','':••.. -• . - ....,. i.-.• • ., '.......`.....,...:;...;;!-AO:Sill :•••• :•••„,•-•':••.'". :.[,,:.•:.. ; . ... :'.,.:.--fl:F.;-..F.I:1;f4tiii •• ::•,.: •',...-:;:,......!•:-••4...... •::"...i.--..c-';::1::::'.4iitfteiti• -• •••::.''.•:'•".'4•11i.,..•••• ' .. i • .,,, ....-.. , , .4 , :5,...,;•, gak, ',,; ::::•:•:.-:,-,:l...14,.....?... • .. .... .,....,•.f.::,,,.• .;••••;:'•'./:::::,..i.v4.....5"..4....44.• • ....-' • - '''.•••1., ' ! 9111 1 • .,•,......1.•,•!!..I......:,;,..:•;61.•'• • .. •••••:,.....,•,.- - :• i ...„.. _..........ii....... .,. . ., , . . ..i.rc:,:.:,..;.........r.::i....,„„x.:..,1„ ... ....... ...• . ;. • ,. . . .„...„ , ,.,:•,...:..,.,..........i., ..,:.::;.„.„4„.• . .... ..:,......,.,..., .c.:7:,.f.:41,.w.,.t. . .. ...:::.....::„... :. . .. .. , • •, . :.., 4,•,.,- . ..• •••• ..;::..,...1's-Vel. . • .. ••••.:'-' ' 47P4777"77:rF77' • . . ' • a. • •::.-, * . ''".;;;.:4...tfttf"?‘....•.'-'r ''., L , ' '•' . ....-:..7:7.....t.:.i..'7•••:....-41‘"'. '"::,-;,!l',/ •'",■-..,'.-:''' ' ;Vy; •- '•, .... ,',• '' ..rt,,,. l t ' I '...c,?). t;:tt • • • .. ... ,• , ,. • • .. ,-.' '''«I'''.:' ''.;::-..•••••• •.•••. ..... • . • .... • .. . . - , . - 1 I '''L.'. :•:::•'••••:,• - • '4,4 TW'rdtiff.••=1,`:j.Fej.517e.,V".n5n..F.... • ••:,•:4,•.••'4,• • ttf.:...••• Oi."''' '.':"■:•,•..!.-.;..14Aie:',' ' . ',....•. ". .t.:t,s.th.....7T;‘).!"fhi.(••:tr.%.4;,f.igiir:'' :-'-" - 0 ...f..;*.r'n.g...q.,'..ft't.4:.W:.:.:.lit'•■•7•....'.,'':-.:11-..,;71‘,.."3...:..e,.:•%:::1.-,..5,.....--.%e. .. - , -.. • ,•••%14:-P.Mli;,;Y:V.i.•4- ',.'.",'' -''....,..--•"-"- . .,.., •-- . ., .1,..,, • ... .. 4:. I ail • ce) 1 I irMim „' 4 •,,,,t. • „,. LL1 r\I - --•-,,, ,:,.:.,,-,„. f,'.:_,,..1k:::;,:,',„....,,.• ce ....1 11.1 W < _J • ,• 'd.‘t, •:, II • t• ,, I I .... ,, . < 2 o 0 rx 0 ctL ' — • '''' ' . 0 ttt,t ..t' •' al_ • •- •Ptt.t...-.'•• '''t't• - .P, ' ''..''''',•?,•lift.Filltt't'4.•If'711,11f,„' , I . ,.. '...1. '-'..”. . (f) .....t ,e.,,.... ''' i ,.',',.. :',.4,' '''''' I i --- 5 .. -, ,.,'•.'• .,.,,!,.4.,: •! ,•'.ii • :','," ' .' ...-' -- -.,,-.•":',"if; ',,,,:.:.•':.,7,4.,,„ ..,:.:,..- ,..:, . .., 4 ‘ . •-.,:t--. ,:i,.,,..,-• ' '0* • ''' ' * ..,- ., .... . • :.,..•.„1.'....: „...,,.... .,, ..,..... ......;.;. i '',..' Li.,;.;,......, 1' ' !,-,;‘,..., -,;,:r. ' •, -L!..4.:, -...,,,, : "r,:;',.?..',';,i '''.•!.',1;..'''''''''?'.;'-'4:.;.'''''":,=1,2=`,-.-..'.[:':..' „..',, pi,g,:, ' y„ :!:::',1;:•f,',. ..'.,' ,-,7i,117?-,A.,,,.,,=:Y4'-, ' wi ,„,..,..,- ... ...,. .......„ „,,,5,1,,,,,, ,,Is:,:,,,,,,,...,,..'!,',•'.-',.,,,i,';41,,t,i,',..;,-,:'47,,,,,,? ,,,, ' -• ,7'., ,oti.•. -,',...,1,4%, „,t,,,,,,-,,,,, .., ,,”",, ..,,,t''.17. ' ,...'''."4".".":-,,-..,,,tt,,tlitl,•-. '44`!,i....t,",' ti'tt'' •,'' '-'''''''. l'kiitii0.9'4:2'...§.4 -,,,,,14', ,. ,',,,,,,, , , .., ■ -,,,,•,-..i,t,' . ._,.., ,-‘,•,,,,,t, , ,.. , ..I r.l. 0 I :•":"..*.' :''' *'' - 'tki",2,...' ,-. , - .t• $‘?".."....• 1 1 ,;.:,,t',' • ' ''' 1 ...,-- ,,. .. .,„,:,,,•:,-;::: _ ,,, -t: ..,,i,1--- ... ...„,.. ' <CI ' .•-• I I -''■i.' „...., ..., 1,. • ..' ' N Z W :w_ .. m 0) W Cl 1 O ij < .,j N Q o LL J > 6-1 w v $ ` ' Q Z CO .Lu CC V U a W�. CO N 3 —a t.1 1 * m , - C m ', z d . O Z. w x ,. Q r s z •r 3 cc D a U I- J _. .\ i • • , . ,.. . ,„ za y h Ld / 1 f , I '" i` -. w, , :".., ,,,e .(xi/I.:It:1 t 3 � a i � ✓` z ao `b .. p III 1 O I •�''' \\''''''4.4:' '' '''A,':.......'..:k. N.- -:::.'YA . r . . ! 2 R. to Q N Z CO E Cr) L1J 0 LLI o w W 0 ,LLI Z<C c 0 < U5 O oa < (I) O --I CL < < E Y U-I I-- < < Z 2 U) --....,...- _..1 ce , 1 WI ....,07,...... .....* 1 f' cn if. I (A) J 4 Sl....M. ...,. I I iNkii I Ci) E 11J . < . .. .... , . , . § Z -.-:L'4. .'. 0 I (1- 0 , • k'.'414.i.:: LLJ . ,. 0 ,:-.•..,,szT.L., LLI i 1/1 I co ,-- •='- RESOLUTION NO. 1640 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 01-010 TQ OPERATE A NEW AND PRE-OWNED (USED) AUTOMOBILE SALES DEALERSHIP AND AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CENTER AT 55 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on April 9 2001, an application was tiled by Rusnak/Arcadia to operate a new and pee-owned (used) automobile sales dealership and automobile service center; Development Services Department Case No. CUP 01-010, at . 55 W. Huntington Drive, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit'A'; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 22, 2001 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 Development Services Department in the attached report dated May 22, 2001 is true and correct. • SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity. 2. That the uses applied for at the location indicated are properly ones for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site, or sites for the proposed uses are adequate in size and shape to accommodate said uses, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required to adjust said uses with the land and uses in the neighborhood: 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed uses. 5. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan, that the proposed uses are consistent with that designation, and that the i granting of the Conditional Use Permit will.not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the Initial Study are appropriate and,that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Qualify Act of 1970, and when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence,before the City that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative Declaration was approved. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-010 to operate a .new and pre-owned (used) automobile sales dealership and automobile service center at 55 W. Huntington Drive, subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval.of CUP 01010 is for the specific uses (i.e.., sales of new & pre-owned automobiles and the operation of an automobile service center) as indicated on the survey map and in the application materials submitted for • CUP 01-0:10, and .the automobile, sales dealership and service center shall be operated and maintained in a manner that is consistent with this. approval of CUP 01=010. 2. The sale of any vehicle displayed and/or stored at this site; regardless of its eventual delivery destination, is to be recorded as a retail sale in the City of Arcadia. 3. While all,exterior improvements, including painting of the,buildings, signs, on-site landscaping, and the refitting of the light standards, are subject to architectural design review and approval, such shall include as a minimum., and be. conditioned as follows, subject•to the approval of the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency: • a. Freestandiing signs(the Code limits the site to 2 freestanding signs with a minimum distance of 200 feet between them) shall be limited to monument type. signs with a maximum overall height of 12 feet.(i.e:, including the sign area and any • -2- 1640 • decorative base and/or cap) and their colors and materials shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. The final design and location of any freestanding sign shall be subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. b. The automobile service center.area shall be fully enclosed so that all service activities are not visible•from outside of the'site. Any vehicles in need of • significant body`repair work that are to be stored or parked on the site for any period of time shall be stored out-of-sight. The design of the enclosure(s) and the location(s) for storage/parking of damaged vehicles shall be subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. c. Any existing chain-link fencing and'gates are to be replaced with wrought- iron fencing and gates, or thoroughly concealed (e.g., with landscaping material)from public view. Any existing barbed wire and/or razor wire must be removed. Any new or replacement fencing to be installed shall be wrought iron. Compliance with these fence conditions is subject to Architectural Design Review and the final installations are subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the. Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. d. A detailed landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, and shall include, et a minimum, the following: • I. New landscaping planters with a minimum 42-inch wide planting area shall be Installed along the Huntington Drive and Morian Place property lines in front of the new car showroom so that all of the street frontages are landscaped. In addition to groundcover and shrubbery, trees shall be included at a maximum interval of 20 feet and two-thirds of them shall be 15-gallon and one-third of them shall be 24- inch box trees. Ii. New landscaping planters with a minimum 3-foot wide planting area shall be provided immediately in front of and along the sides of both the new and -3- 1640 Pre=owned automobile sales buildings, and immediately behind the pre-owned • automobile sales building: In addition to groundcover;. shrubbery, and vines for screening of the wall, the.landscaping for these buildings shall include*15-gallon trees at a maximum'interval.of 20 feet. • iii. New 20-foot long landscaping planter returns..with a minimum 42-inch wide,planting'.area shall be installed at all the driveways along Huntington-Drive and Santa Clara.Street:r'In addition to groundcover and shrubbery, each planter Tatum shall include two 24-inch box:trees. iv. All existing and new landscaping planters shall be surrounded with continuous 6-inch high.•raised Portland concrete cement curbing. v. The landscaping in the existing planters along the perimeter of the site shall include 15-gallon trees at intervals that are consistent with the existing Crape Myrtle trees along Santa Clara Street. vi. The tree wells on the west side of the westerly service building are to be planted'with 15=gallon trees and,vines to screen the wall. e. Materials and colors sample boards shall be provided for all of the •• buildings and.the final building finishes are subject to.approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment•Agency: • . f. The light standards shall be painted to match the.buildings subject to the approval of the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 4. The.entire•site is to be Slurry sealed and re-striped: On-site employee:and customer parking.shall be provided. The striping plan, lane markings, and the number and locations of the employee and customer parking spaces are to be approved by the fire Marshall and Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 5. A plan and schedule for deliveries and pick-ups, either on-or off-site, shall be provided (deliveries and pick-ups will not be allowed on Huntington Drive) and • -4- 1640 shall be subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 6. The use of a public address system and/or any outdoor speakers shall be limited to normal business hours (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday thru Saturday, except for holidays)and shall be installed and used in accordance to a plan that shall be subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 7. All conditions of approval and all life-safety items shall be complied with prior to occupancy and operation, or any non-life safety items not completed may be • bonded for to guarantee their completion in a timely manner subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 8. Noncompliance with the plans,'provisions and conditions of CUP 01.-010 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. 9. Approval of CUP 01-010 shall not take effect until the property owner and • applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Planning Services to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. 10. Except as allowed by Code for promotional and other special events, pennants, streamers, spinners, festoons, inflatable figures and/or other similar-types of attention attracting displays are prohibited. SECTION 4. The decision, findings, and conditions of approval contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of May 22, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Huang, Olson and Murphy NOES: None • ABSENT: Commissioners Bruckner and Kalemkiarian • 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. • -5- 1 640 3 1 HEREBY.CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 1640 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on May 22, 2001, by the following • vote: AYES: Commissioners Huang, Olson and Murphy NOES: None . ABSENT: Commissioners Bruckner and.Kalemkiarian /s/ John Murphy Chairman, Planning Commission . • ' City of Arcadia ATTEST: /s/Donna L. Butler . Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/Stephen P. Deltsch Stephen,P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia _6- 1640 11) EXHIBIT 'A' Legal Description—55 W. Huntington Drive That portion of Lot 3 of Tract 949, In the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles,State of California,as per map recorded in Book 17 Page 13 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County, together with that certain piece or parcel of land in the Santa Anita Rancho, as per map recorded in Book 1 Page 97 of Patents, in the Office of Said Recorder, being that portion of that certain strip of land 40.00 feet wide, described in deed recorded in Book 444 Page 283 of Deeds, and as shown on map of said Tract 949,recorded in Book 17 Page 13 of Maps, in the Office of Said Recorder,together with Lots 6 and 7 of Tract 13768, as per map recorded in Book 273 Page 37 of Maps, in the Office of Said Recorder, and together with a portion of that certain piece or parcel of said land in Santa Anita Rancho in Said City, as per map recorded in Book 1 Page 97 of Patents, in the. Office of Said Recorder,described as a whole as follows: Beginning at a point in the southerly line of said Lot 3, distant westerly thereon 593.00 feet from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 3; thence north, parallel with the easterly line'of said Lot 3,a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the land described in deeds granted to the Said City of Arcadia for Road Purposes by deeds recorded in Book 24642 Page 221, and in Book 24633 Page 275, Official Records of Said County, being the true point of beginning for this description; thence continuing north, parallel with said easterly line of Lot 3, a distance of 154.52 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southeast and having a radius of 250.00 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through an arc of 22° 10'40"a distance of 96.77 feet to the most southerly corner of said Lot 7 of Tract 13768, being also the beginning of a compound curve in said southerly line that is concave to the southeast and has a radius of 153.80 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through an arc of 39° 16'20"a distance of 105.42 feet;thence continuing along said southeasterly line of Lot 7,North 61°27' 00" East, tangent to said last mentioned curve, a distance of 6.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent • curve in said southeasterly line of Lot 7 that is concave to the southeast and has a radius of 153.80 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through an arc of 8°00'00"a distance of 21.48 feet to the end of same, said end of curve lying South 69°27'00"West, along said southeasterly line of Lot 7, a distance of 25.96 feet from the most easterly corner of said Lot 7;thence North 69°27'00"East 25.96 feet to said most easterly corner, said easterly corner also being the southwesterly corner of Lot 6 in said Tract 13768 thence following the southeasterly line of said Lot 6, through its Various courses and distances, to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 6;thence along the easterly line of said Lot 6 and its northerly prolongation, North 9° 14'54" West 219.09 feet to a point in the southeasterly line of Santa Clara Street, 80 feel wide, as described in Resolution recorded August 9, 1963, in Book D-2140 Page 264, Official Records, said point also being a point on a curve, concave to the southeast. and having a radius of 560 feet thence southwesterly along said last mentioned curve and along said street a distance of 335.06 feet; and tangent to said last mentioned curve South 38°•32'37"West, along the southeasterly line of Santa Clara Street, a distance of 171.31 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly, and having a radius of 1,565.04 feet; thence continuing along said street, southwesterly along said curve 125.13 feet through a central angle of 4°34'52"to a point on a reverse curve, concave to the southeast and having a radius of 1,565.04 feet; thence continuing along said street,southwesterly along said curve 125.13 feet, through a central angle of 4°34'52"and tangent to said last mentioned curve South 38°32'37"West 119.90 feet to a tangent curve that is concave to the East-and having a radius of 10 feet;thence southerly and easterly along said curve,22.44 feet;through a central angle of 128°32'37"to its point of tangency with a line parallel to the south line of said Lot 3 of Tract 949,and 20 feet north of said South line; thence along said parallel line,in a general direction, to the true point of beginning. Except from a portion of the above described property, all minerals, ores, petroleum, oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbon substances lying 500 feet below the surface of said land, as reserved in deed from Pacific Electric Railway Company,a Corporation,recorded May 15, 1962,in Book D-1614, Page 679, Official Records. • Exhibit'A' 1640 t • RESOLUTION NO. 1684 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 02-020 FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO THE NEW CAR SHOWROOM AND REVISIONS TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CUP 01-010 (RESOLUTION NO. 1640) REGARDING SIGNS, FENCING AND LANDSCAPING FOR THE NEW AND USED CAR DEALERSHIP AND SERVICE CENTER AT 55 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE. WHEREAS, on October 29, 2002, a Conditional Use Permit application was filed by Rusnak/Arcadia for a 2,644 square foot, two-story addition to their new car showroom at 55 West Huntington Drive;. Development Services Department Case No. CUP 02-020, and concurrent with that application they are requesting revisions to CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640)for their new and used car dealership and service center at 55 West Huntington Drive, more particularly described in the attached Exhibit'A'; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on December 10, 2002 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 Development Services Department in the attached report dated December 10, 2002 are true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission finds: 1. That the granting of Conditional Use Permit No..CUP 02-020 and revising Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-010 will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, nor injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or vicinity. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the subject property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan, that the proposed use is consistent with that designation, and that the granting and revising of the Conditional Use Permits will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. 6. That the evaluation of the environmental impacts as set forth in the Initial Study is appropriate and that the project will have no significant effect upon the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, and, when considering the project as a whole, there was no evidence before the City that the proposed project would have any potentially adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends, and therefore, a Negative Declaration was adopted. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 02-020 for a 2,644•square foot, two-story adition to the new car showroom at 55 West Huntington Drive, subject to the fd ef ollowi g conditions: g 1.. The showroom addition and the site,shall be Improved and maintained in manners that are consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for CUP 02-020, subject to design review approval by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 2. A sample of the black "Alucobond" metal shall be provided for consideration and approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the showroom. 3. The construction plans for the showroom addition shall include detailed landscaping and irrigation plans, which shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 4110 -2- 1684 4. A decorative treatment shall be included in the new concrete walkway for • the new main entrance, the design of which shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 5. The showroom addition and the new car sales portion of the site (i.e., the area east of the driveway on Huntington Drive and south of the service center driveway) shall comply with all building and safety measures determined to be necessary by the Building Official and Fire Marshall, and shall be subject to review for, and compliance with all applicable and necessary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions as determined by the Public Works Services Director. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia • concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall.promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 7. . Approval of CUP 02-020 shall not take effect until the applicant and property owner have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of all the conditions of approval. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, exhibits, provisions, and conditions of approval for CUP 02-020 shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of the • CUP. -3- 1684 SECTION 4. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants the following revisions to Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) • for the new and used car dealership and service center at'55 West Huntington Drive, subject to the conditions listed after the revisions: 1. Section 3.3.a of Resolution No. 1640 is revised (additions in bold Italics and deletions in streugho)as follows: "a. Freestanding signs (the Code limits the site to 2 freestanding signs with a minimum distance of 200 feet between them) shall be limited to monument or pylon type signs with one to have a maximum height of 17%6", and the other to have a maximum everali height of 12 feet (i.e., including the sign area and any decorative base and/or cap) and their colors and materials shall be consistent with the architecture of the building. The final design and location of any freestanding sign shall be subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency." 2. Section 3.3.c of Resolution No. 1640 is revised (additions In bold italics) as follows: "c. Any existing chain-link fencing and gates are to be replaced with wrought-iron fencing and gates, or thoroughly concealed (e.g., with landscaping material)from public view, or screening and/or slats may be added to the existing chain-link fencing and gates for a maximum period of two years from this revision (i.e., up until December 10, 2004). Any existing barbed wire and/or razor wire must be removed. Any new or replacement fencing to be installed shall be wrought 'iron. Compliance with these fence conditions is subject to Architectural Design Review and the final Installations are subject to approval by the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency." • 3. Subsections i — vi of Section 3.3.d of Resolution No. 1640 are revised (additions in bold italics and deletions in strikethroughs) as follows: -4- 1684 410 t -• " . . •• - ••• . -• .• : " inch ox troes:" "ii. New landscaping planters with a minimum 3-foot wide planting area shall be provided immediately in front of and along the sides of both the new-and pre- owned automobile sales buildings, and immediately behind the pre-owned automobile sales building, and a minimum 20-inch wide planting area shall be provided immediately in front of and along the sides of the new car showroom. In addition to groundcover and shrubbery, the landscaping for feF-these-buildihgs shall include 15-gallon trees at a maximum interval of 20 feet for the planter behind the pre-owned automobile sales building." "Iii. • - _ . - - _ ••• " _ .•- - • _ - _ . - - • - . . -- •II "iv. All existing and new landscaping planters shall be surrounded with continuous 6-inch high raised Portland concrete cement curbing, except along street side property lines." "v. The - - . -_ - - - - . . . . - • . • - - - • _ ._- - . . . . . - -- - •• - - - - - = - . . existing Crape Myrtle trees along Santa Clara Street shall be preserved." "vi. The tree wells on the west side of the westerly service building are to be planted with 15-gallon trees 4. The revised conditions of approval for CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) shall be satisfied within 90 days to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, except for the revisions to Section 3.3.d.i which shall be satisfied In conjunction with the showroom addition, or within two years, whichever is sooner, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. -5- 1684 5. The new pylon sign shall be installed and maintained in a manner that is consistent with the proposal and plans submitted and conditionally approved for'the revisions to CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) including the enhancing of the landscaping at the sign location, subject to design review approval by the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, and to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director and/or the Deputy Executive Director of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. 6. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers; employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval.or condition of approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, Including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval'of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable'to this project or decision, The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense • of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 7. Approval of the revisions to CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) shall not take effect until the applicant and property owner have executed and filed the ' Acceptance Form available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of all The conditions of approval. 8. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions, and conditions of approval for CUP 01,010 (Resolution No. 1640) as originally approved, as well as with the revisions to CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) shall be grounds for suspension and/or revocation of CUP 01-010. SECTION 5. The decision, findings, and conditions of approval contained in this Resolution reflect the Planning Commission's action of December 10, 2002 to grant Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 02-020, revise Conditional Use Permit No. • -6- 1684 a 0 CUP 01-010 (Resolution No. 1640) and adopt this Resolution No. 1684. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Resolution No. 1684 was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on December 10, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Hsu, Lucas, Wen and Olson NOES: None 4,_„ek. 02-----„ Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia • 7ET' O • AI.- - '!t -4110111,.._ si Secretary, Pla'ing Commission ity of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: Pi--t^ P. 1)-6; f1 Stephen P. Deitsch, City Attorney City of Arcadia . • -7- 1684 I EXHIBIT 'A' Legal Description—55 W. Huntington Drive That portion of Lot 3 of Tract.949, in the City of Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, State of California, • as per map recorded in Book 17 Page 13 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of Said County, together with that certain piece or parcel of land in the Santa Anita Rancho, as per map recorded in Book 1 Page 97 of Patents, in-the Office of Said Recorder, being that portion of that certain strip of land 40.00 feet wide, described In deed recorded in Book 444 Page 283 of Deeds, and as shown on map of said Tract 949, recorded in Book 17 Page 13 of Maps, in the Office of Said Recorder, together with Lots.6 and 7 of Tract 13768,,as per map recorded in Book 273 Page 37 of Maps, in the Office of Said Recorder, and together with a portion of that certain piece or parcel of said land in Santa Anita Rancho in Said City, as per map recorded in Book 1 Page 97 of Patents, in the Office of Said Recorder, described as a whole as follows: Beginning at a point in the southerly line of said Lot 3, distant westerly thereon 593.00 feet from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 3; thence north, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 3, a distance of 20.00 feet to the north line of the land described in deeds granted to the Said City of Arcadia for Road Purposes by deeds recorded in Book 24642 Page 221, and in Book 24633 Page 275, Official Records of Said County, being the true point of beginning for this description;.thence continuing north, parallel with said easterly line of Lot 3, a distance of 154.52 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to the southeast and having a radius of 250.00 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through an arc of 22° 10' 40" a distance of 96.77 feet to the most southerly corner of said Lot 7 of Tract 13768, being also the.beginning of a compound curve in said southerly line that is concave to the southeast and has a radius of 153.80 feet; thence northeasterly along said curve through an arc of 39° 16' 20" a distance of 105.42 feet; thence continuing along said southeasterly line of Lot 7, North 61° 27' 00" East, tangent to said last mentioned curve, a distance of 6.25 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve in said southeasterly line of Lot 7 that is concave to the southeast and has a radius of 153.80 feet; thence northeasterly • along said curve through an arc of 8°00' 00"a distance of 21.48 feet.to the'end of same, said end of curve lying South 69° 27' 00" West, along said southeasterly line of Lot 7, a distance of 25.96 feet from the most easterly corner of said Lot 7; thence North 69°27' 00" East 25.96 feet to said most easterly corner, said easterly corner also being the southwesterly corner of Lot 6 in said Tract 13768 thence following the southeasterly line of said Lot 6, through its various courses and distances,to the-southeasterly corner of said Lot 6; thence.along-the easterly line of'said Lot 6 and its northerly prolongation, North 9° 14' 54" West 219.09 feet to a point in the southeasterly line of Santa Clara Street, 80 feet-wide, as described in Resolution recorded August 9, 1963, in Book D-2140 Page 264, Official Records, said point also being a point on a curve, concave to the southeast, and having a radius of 560 feet; thence southwesterly along said last mentioned curve and along said street a distance of 335.06 feet; and tangent to said last mentioned curve South 38° 32' 37" West, along the southeasterly line of Santa Clara Street, a distance of 171.31 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave northwesterly, and having a radius of 1,565.04 feet; thence continuing along said street, southwesterly along said curve 125.13 feet; through a central angle of 4°'34' 52" to a point on a reverse curve, concave to the southeast and.having a radius of 1,565.04 feet; thence continuing along said street, southwesterly along said curve 125.13 feet, through a central angle of 4°34'52"and tangent to said last mentioned curve South 38°32'37"West 119.90 feet to a tangent curve that is concave to the East and having a radius of 10 feet;thence southerly and easterly along said curve, 22.44 feet; through a central angle of 128° 32' 37" to its point of tangency with a line parallel to the south line of said Lot 3 of Tract 949, and 20 feet north of said South line;thence along said parallel line, In a general direction, to the true point of beginning. Except from a portion of the above described property, all minerals, ores, petroleum, oil, natural gas and other hydrocarbon substances lying 500 feet below the surface of said land, as reserved • In 'deed from Pacific Electric Railway Company, a Corporation, recorded May 15, 1962, in Book D=1614, Page 679, Official Records. Exhibit'A' 1684 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report documents the results of a traffic impact completed for the proposed expansion of the Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes dealership at its current location at 55 West Huntington Drive at the corner of Morlan Place ce in ement of Arcadia. This study was performed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Congestion g Program(CMP)guidelines for completing a traffic study under the direction of City of Arcadia staff. Based upon the analysis documented in this report,the following are our conclusions and recommendations: • The proposed expansion of the Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes dealership is comprised of a 1.95-acre dealership expansion that will include an additional 25,000 square feet of showroom space and 80,000 square feet of service and parts space. The existing 13,000 square foot building will remain as office space. The expansion would include a total surface parking area of 130,000 square feet and 465 total parking spaces. • The Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion would generate 67 (33 inbound, 34 outbound) net daily weekday trips,21 (16 inbound,5 outbound)net trips in the AM peak hour(7-9am),and 14(6 inbound,8 outbound)net trips in the PM peak hour(4-6pm). • The Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion would generate 13(7inbound,7 outbound)net daily Saturday trips and 4 (2 inbound,2 outbound)net trips in the PM peak hour(4-6pm)on Saturday. • According to the site plan received from the City of Arcadia,adequate site access has been provided. The project proposes three additional driveways at the following locations. o Two on Santa Clara Street immediately west of Santa Anita Avenue. o One on Morlan Place immediately west of Santa Anita Avenue. • Based on the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program(CMP)requirements,there are no significant impacts resulting from the proposed expansion project. Accordingly, no mitigation measures are required for this project. • Parking provided as part of the Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion will be sufficient to support increase in sales customers,sales employees,service employees,and inventory display. • Construction traffic(deliveries,etc.)shall be scheduled during off-peak hours to minimize impact on adjacent roadways. Construction is expected to impact the adjacent roadways temporarily (approximately a year).In the immediate project work area,flagmen and lane channelization devices will regulate access and parking during work hours. Rusnak/Arcadia Morlan Place Project TIA 4 January 9,2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This addendum to the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 9, 2013 documents updated analysis resulting from a revised project description.Additional discussion on the contents of this addendum is provided in the Introduction.Following is the revised Executive Summary. This report documents the results of a traffic impact completed for the proposed expansion of the Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes dealership at its current location at 55 West Huntington Drive at the corner of Morlan Place in the City of Arcadia. This study was performed in accordance with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program(CMP)guidelines for completing a traffic study under the direction of City of Arcadia staff. Based upon the analysis documented in this report,the following are our conclusions and recommendations: • The proposed expansion of the Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes dealership is comprised of a 1.95-acre dealership expansion that will include an additional 25,000 square feet of showroom space and 78,000 square feet of service and parts space. The existing 13,000 square foot building will remain as office space. The expansion would include a total surface parking area of 54,400 square feet and 550 total parking spaces. • The Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion would generate 125(62 inbound,63 outbound)net daily weekday trips, 39 (30 inbound, 9 outbound) net trips in the AM peak hour (7-9am), and 25 (11 inbound, 14 outbound)net trips in the PM peak hour(4-6pm). • The Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion would generate 14 (7 inbound, 7 outbound) net daily Saturday trips and 4(2 inbound,2 outbound)net trips in the PM peak hour(4-6pm) on Saturday. • According to the previous site plan received from the City of Arcadia,adequate site access has been provided. The project proposes three additional driveways at the following locations. o Two on Santa Clara Street immediately west of Santa Anita Avenue. o One on Morlan Place immediately west of Santa Anita Avenue. • Based on the County of Los Angeles Congestion Management Program(CMP)requirements,there are no significant impacts resulting from the proposed expansion project. Accordingly,no mitigation measures are required for this project. • Parking provided as part of the Rusnak/Arcadia dealership expansion will be sufficient to support increase in sales customers, sales employees,service employees,and inventory display. • Construction traffic(deliveries,etc.)shall be scheduled during off-peak hours to minimize impact on adjacent roadways. Construction is expected to impact the adjacent roadways temporarily (approximately a year).In the immediate project work area,flagmen and lane channelization devices will regulate access and parking during work hours. Addendum to RusnaWArcadia Morlan Place Project TIA 4 September 16,2013 SHEET 1 of 5 SCALE 1. - 200' LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT , N w Wilt S W SHEET 2 - - icn< 0.$ c., _ _ dr ... J 1E , ii.,2, „..o- _____ _ _ _ _ _ 7.-- () i / Alf i 7 .-- -/ Ig ;If" I Z SHEET 3 / Io m HUNTINGTON DR. /4"' CARWS %11 * Exp. 12/31/13 N0. j'AOF GO, CARLOS URENA LS 8234 EXPIRES 12-31-13 RECORD OWNER//DEVBAPER: CNN. ENGINEER 101 SANTA ANITA, LLA PBLA ENGINEERING, INC. 325 WEST COLORADO BLVD 4790 IRVINE BLVD., SUITE 105-262 PASADENA, CA 91105 IRVINE, CA 92620 626-449-2377 888-714-9642, EXT. 3 I INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND RUSNAK MERCEDES BENZ REVISED TO ADDRESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/DISCRETIONARY APPLICATIONS IP CITY OF ARCADIA LEAD AGENCY City of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91007 (626) 574-5414 September 2013 INITIAL STUDY 1. Project Title: Rusnak Auto Dealership Expansion(CUP 13-11/ZV 13-02/LLA 13-03/ADR 13-32) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia as Successor Agency to the former Arcadia Redevelopment Agency 240 West Huntington Dr. P.O.Box 60021 Arcadia,CA 91066 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jason Kruckeberg(626)574-5414 4. Project Location: 101 N.Santa Anita Avenue,bounded by Morlan Place to the south,Santa Clara Street to the north, Santa Anita Avenue to the east and Huntington Drive to the southwest. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Rusnak/Arcadia,a California corporation 325 W.Colorado Boulevard,Pasadena,CA 91105 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial 7. Zoning: CBD&C-2 with Downtown Overlay 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary,support,or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheet(s)if necessary.) An Initial Study was prepared for this project and circulated in May,2013.The project at that time was the first discretionary action taken by the lead agency(a Purchase and Sale Agreement).This project was approved and a Notice of Determination was filed on May 23,2013.It was clear in that Initial Study that a subsequent action would be the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit and associated discretionary applications(Variance, Lot Line Adjustment,and Architectural Design Review).The Conditional Use Permit was submitted on September 18,2013.The project submitted for CUP is essentially the same as the project reviewed in the May Initial Study.However,since there are slight differences,the lead agency is resubmitting this Initial Study for review.New analysis or text is indicated by text that is underlined.Text or analysis that is no longer applicable is shown in strikeout. The proposed project involves a Purchase and Sale Agreement by and between the City of Arcadia as Successor Agency to the former Arcadia Redevelopment Agency(the"Agency")and Rusnak/Arcadia("Rusnak"). According to the Purchase and Sale Agreement,Rusnak would purchase certain Agency-owned real property(the"Property") immediately adjacent to the existing Rusnak dealership for purposes of redeveloping the currently underutilized Property as an expansion of the existing Rusnak automobile sales and service center. The total project site is 5.7 acres and is generally located at the southeast corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street. The proposed automobile sales and service center would occupy approximately 4.2 of the total project site acreage. The proposed project is a single building be organized in two sections: a new showroom,building and a new service,parts,and auto storage area building. The showroom would be approximately 25,000 square feet and would front Santa Anita Avenue. The showroom portion would be a two-story building consisting of the following features: structural steel frame clad with ACM panels,metal corrugated panels,clear glass,spandrel glass,metal louvers, Autohaus columns,and corporate signage. The showroom plan is open and is comprised of a significant amount of glass/windows on all sides.The majority of customer contact spaces would be planned for the lower floor of the showroom. The second floor of the showroom would be used for dealership offices, conference room(s),training room(s),and break room(s).The primary changes to the project are to add another level to the service and parking portion of the structure(of approximately 15 additional feet),while not adding floor area based on what was previously submitted and evaluated,and to change the service entrance to Morlan Street. In addition,although no additional floor area is proposed,the revised plan includes additional service bays which are Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 1 of 50 FORM"J" reviewed in the accompanying addendum to the traffic study and relevant portions of the Initial Study. Product display will front both Morlan Place and Santa Clara and will follow the curving showroom in both directions. The display in front of the showroom will be patio type display that will have different paving patterns and a more integrated presentation with the landscaping. Employee parking is found at the rear of the project with access off Morlan Street. Parts and delivery will also take their ingress and egress off of Morlan Street. The access to the site has been designed to minimize impact on Santa Anita Avenue while separating sales and service customers from deliveries and employee movements. Transport drop off is also proposed to take place from Morlan Street. The wash and detail area is to the rear of the service area in order to prepare all new car deliveries for show. All service cars will also be washed and parked in front of the service building to await customer pick-up. The service building would be constructed of concrete,concrete block,smooth plaster with windows for light and ventilation. The services building is planned to be 80,000 square feet in size. Like the showroom,the service building will be three stories. Roof-top parking will be available on the service building roof. The service building would contain all service,technician spaces,parks and additional parking,as well as detail,preparation spaces and a carwash tunnel. A small display jewel box is located on the end of the second floor and the jewel box would be constructed of glass and steel. The architecture of the proposed sales and service buildings would be contemporary and would integrate the Mercedes-Benz Corporate ID program palette of materials. The color scheme permitted by Mercedes-Benz'Corporate ID program is different shades of grey for field colors and exterior accent colors of light blue to medium blue on the columns. Curtain wall butt joint trim and louvers would be natural brushed aluminum. All exterior doors would be frameless with natural aluminum trim. The proposed project has been proposed to be a minimum LEED Silver certified development. Because of the narrow configuration of the site,the service drive separates the service from the showroom buildings. Main customer access is taken off Santa Clara with access off of Morlan Place for service parking. The service drive length and multiple lanes give the project an ability to queue approximately 24 cars at a time. All new cars will be delivered under controlled interior environment adjacent to the finance offices to the rear of the showroom. A secondary delivery location would be provided near the service drive.The vast majority of deliveries will occur in the early AM hours. In order for the project to be feasible,approximately 13,000 square feet of the existing 27,000 square foot Rusnak dealership would need to be demolished. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) The site is bordered by Santa Clara Street to the north and west and Morlan Place to the south. The properties to the east are zoned Central Business District(CBD),and are developed with commercial,office and retail land uses. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits,financing approval,or participation agreement): • Regional Water Quality Control Board—NPDES Permit • Conditional Use Permit(City of Arcadia)and ancillary applications.(Current application) Rusnak Conditional Use Pennit—9/19/13 Page 2 of 50 FORM"J" ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. D Aesthetics El Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality O Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils 0 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards&Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality El Land Use/Planning 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise Population/Housing p Public Services 0 Recreation O Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION(To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I fmd 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. E3 I fmd 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. 0 I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Signature Date Jason Kruckeberg For Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 3 of 50 FORM"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. 7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold,if any,used to evaluate each question;and b) the mitigation measure identified,if any,to reduce the impact to less than significance. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 4 of 50 FORM"J" M... Standard Conditions and Mitigation Measures Standard Conditions(SC)are existing regulations that are imposed by the City and compliance with these regulations is largely the responsibility of the project applicant/development. The SCs are not considered as mitigation measures under CEQA. Rather,they are expected to be implemented as a matter of course by the City. Where mitigation measures are required, CEQA law requires the preparation of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures identified in the attached table has been developed in sufficient detail to provide the necessary information to identify the party or parties responsible for carrying out the mitigation measure, when the mitigation will be implemented, and who will verify that the mitigation has been implemented. This project does have standard conditions,but no Mitigation Measures are required. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ ❑ a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Environmental Setting Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public's experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project's presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment,aesthetic impacts may occur. This analysis is based on review of the conceptual project map, aerial photographs of the project area, visual renderings of the proposed automobile sales and service center, and planning documents. Discussion • a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. There are no designated scenic vistas within or near the project area. Therefore,the project would have no impact on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 5 of 50 FORM"J" No Impact. The proposed project is not located near a designated state scenic highway or eligible state scenic highway(DOT 2007)and,therefore, would not damage scenic resources,including but not limited to trees, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Therefore,no impact would occur. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? No Impact. The proposed project site is surrounded by a secondary arterial to the north and west(Santa Clara Street), a primary arterial to the south(Huntington Drive)and commercial land uses to the east. The site is currently occupied by a vacant and deteriorating 18,076 square foot retail building. The proposed project would substantially improve the existing visual character of the site because it would add new buildings with contemporary architecture and visual appeal. The proposed project would be subject to the City's Architectural Design Review process to ensure that the proposed automobile sales and service center comply with the City's design standards, and that the proposed buildings would blend with the surrounding built environment in terms of building massing, architectural coating,and orientation. The height of the new buildings proposed by the project shall =. • - ' .: __ .• _ _ . . _ exceed the height limit in the CBD zone by 15 feet (to a maximum of 60 feet). The project site straddles two zoning designations(CBD and C2 H6). The CBD zone has a height limit of 45 feet while the C2 H6 zone has a height overlay and allows a limit of 65 feet. As a result,the project needs a Variance to exceed the 45 foot height limit in the CBD zone.However,the Variance findings have been met due to the dual zoning of the site creating a hardship,and the fact that the zoning of the existing dealership has allowed 65 feet for many years. Surrounding this site is an 8 story office building across Santa Anita, an 8 story self-storage building across Morlan Street and several other projects that are multi-story and provide similar scale in the immediate region. As a result,theproject fits within the split-zoning of the site and the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and no impact would occur. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include lighting for the new showroom and service building,pole-mounted lighting in the parking area similar to the existing lighting, and building mounted security lighting. All lighting would be directed downward and would be contained within the project site so as to prevent spill light. Light fixtures installed at the site would comply with the City-adopted lighting standards. Pole-mounted lighting would be downcast to decrease light spill onto adjacent properties and would comply with City-adopted lighting standards. The proposed lighting for the project would be consistent with the illumination intensity of the surrounding uses such that the project would not substantially increase the overall illumination of the area. In fact,the majority of light from the new showroom and service area will direct lighting away from residential properties to the west, as the active portion of the site is moving to the east,toward commercial uses. The building itself will be made of glass and various panels of metal cladding. All glazing will be anti glare and the metal cladding is similar to what is on the current Rusnak buildings.This material is anti-glare as well and,while it has a sheen when reflecting the sun,will not lead to substantial glare.Because the lighting would be minimal and would comply with City lighting standards,and the building will utilize anti-glare materials,the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. In addition,the additional height proposed(up to 60 feet maximum)would not add to the light or glare in any substantial way. This impact would be less than significant. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 6 of 50 FORM"J" w .w Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland,are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land,including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique 0 0 E Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for El 0 E agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for,or El 0 ❑ cause rezoning of,forest land(as defmed in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),timberland(as defmed by Public Resources Code section 4526),or timberland zoned Timberland Production(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or El El ❑ conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 7 of 50 FORM"J" e) Involve other changes in the existing • environment which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Environmental Setting The proposed project site is located within an existing developed portion of the City. There are no agriculture or forest resources located within the project site. The California Department of Conservation(CDC)Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program(FMMP) designated agricultural land based on soil quality and irrigation status into eight categories. Based on the FMMP data,the project site is located within an area designated as"Urban and Built-up Land". The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of preserving agriculture and restricting unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the contract, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments based on the property's value for farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. The project site is designated in the City of Arcadia General Plan as Commercial and is zoned CBD&C-2 with a Downtown Overlay that allows up to a 1.0 Floor Area Ratio and up to 45 feet in height or four stories (City of Arcadia 2010). Discussion a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is designated as Urban and Built-up Land pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency(FMMP 2008). The project would have no impact related to conversion of Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. b) Conflict with existing zoning for,or cause rezoning of,forest land,timberland,or timberland zoned Timberland Production? No Impact. The project site is not zoned for agricultural use. The project site is developed and is not under an existing Williamson Act contract. The proposed project is consistent with existing land use and zoning designations and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract. Therefore,no impact would occur. c) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There are no forest resources located within the project site and the site is not zoned for timber harvest. The project site is already developed with a parking lot and an existing retail building. The proposed project would have no impact related to timberland harvest or conflicts with land zoned for forestry or timber harvest. d) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 8 of 50 FORM"J" No Impact. The project area is not forested. The site does not have any forestry resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g),timberland as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526, or timberland zoned Timberland Production as defined by Government Code section 51104(g). Therefore, no impact would occur. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment,which,due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use? No Impact. Indirect impacts on agricultural lands can occur in two ways: 1)by development placing pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non-agricultural uses; or 2)through conflict between the two types of land uses leading to the abandonment of agricultural uses. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Arcadia's adopted land use and zoning designations. The project would not encroach on the agricultural land and would not include residential development,which could result in conflicts that could encourage the conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. No forest land or timberland exists on or in the vicinity of the project site and the proposed project does not include components that would result in the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The proposed project would have no impact related to conversion of farmland or forest land to a non-agricultural/non-forest use. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct ❑ ❑ ❑ implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ® ❑ considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 9 of 50 FORM"J" d i e) Create objectionable odors affecting U U ® ❑ a substantial number of people? Environmental Setting The project site is located in Los Angeles County, which lies within the South Coast Air Basin and is under the local air quality jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Nearby sensitive receptors include the Arroyo Pacific school and residential uses to the north of the property. Recent measurements of the City's air quality show that the City's air quality exceeds thresholds for Ozone(03), particulate matter of 10 microns or less(PM10), and particulate matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). (Arcadia General Plan Update EIR,2010.) The SCAQMD,with input from the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG), is responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP) for the SoCAB,which addresses federal and state CAA requirements. The AQMP details goals,policies, and programs for improving air quality in the SoCAB. The SCAQMD has published the Draft Final 2007 AQMP, which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on June 1,2007. In September 2007,the CARB Board adopted the SCAQMD 2007 AQMP as part of the SIP. The purpose of the 2007 AQMP for the SoCAB (and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under the SCAQMD's jurisdiction)is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance with federal and State air quality planning requirements for ozone and PM2.5. On September 27, 2007,the CARB Board adopted the State Strategy for the 2007 SIP and the 2007 South Coast AQMP as part of the SIP. Additionally,the 2007 AQMP has been submitted to the USEPA for approval,but no timeline on the approval is available at this time. As part of the 2007 AQMP,the SCAQMD requested and the USEPA approved a"bump-up"to the"extreme" nonattainment classification for ozone in the SoCAB,which extends the attainment date to 2024 and allows for the attainment demonstration to rely on emission reductions from measures that anticipate the development of new technologies or improvement of existing control technologies. Although PM2.5 plans for nonattainment areas were due in April 2008,the 2007 AQMP also focuses on attainment strategies for the PM25 standard through stricter control of sulfur oxides, directly emitted PM2.5,NOx,and VOCs. The need to commence PM2.5 control strategies before April 2008 is due to the attainment date for PM2.5(2015)being much earlier than that for ozone(2024). However, it should be noted that the PM25 plans are still in the process of being submitted. Control measures and strategies for PM2.5 will also help control ozone generation in the region because PM2.5 and ozone share similar precursors(e.g.,NOx). The SCAQMD has integrated PM2.5 and ozone reduction control measures and strategies in the 2007 AQMP. In addition,the AQMP focuses on reducing VOC emissions,which have not been reduced at the same rate as NOx emissions in the past. Hence,the SoCAB has not achieved ozone reductions as were expected in previous plans. The 2007 AQMP was based on assumptions provided by both CARB and SCAG in the new EMFAC2007 model for the most recent motor vehicle and demographics information,respectively. The air quality levels projected in the 2007 AQMP are based on several assumptions. For example,the 2007 AQMP has assumed that development associated with general plans, specific plans,residential projects, and wastewater facilities will be constructed in accordance with population growth projections identified by SCAG in the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). The 2007 AQMP also has assumed that such development projects will implement strategies to reduce emissions generated during the construction and operational phases of development. SCAQMD has established the following thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants: Pollutant Construction Operation NOx 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day VOC 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 10 of 50 FORM"J" PMio 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day PM2.5 55 lbs/day 55 lbs/day SOx 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day CO 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Lead 3 lbs/day 3 lbs/day Source: City of Arcadia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report 2010 The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations for maintaining clean air in the region.All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to future development pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update may include,but are not limited to: • Rule 401, Visible Emissions. A person shall not discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines. • Rule 402,Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment,nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public,or which endanger the comfort,repose,health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. • Rule 403,Fugitive Dust This rule is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic(man-made)fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent,reduce,or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. • Rule 1113,Architectural Coatings. No person shall apply or solicit the application of any architectural coating within the SCAQMD,with VOC content in excess of the values specified in a table incorporated in the Rule. • Regulation IX,NSPS, and Regulation X,NESHAPS. Federal standards for the performance of new stationary sources and the NESHAPS were adopted by the SCAQMD and made part of their rules and apply to the owner or operator of any stationary source that generates hazardous air pollutants. • Regulation XI and XIII. These regulations contain source-specific standards for various industrial uses and other pollutant sources and outlines review requirements for new,modified, or relocated facilities. • Regulation XIV, Toxics and Other Non-Criteria Pollutants, and Rule 1401,New Source Review to TACs. Under SCAQMD Regulation XIV and Rule 1401, all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from the SCAQMD. Permits may be granted to operations that are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new source review standards and airtoxics control measures. The SCAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs and prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 11 of 50 FORM"J" • Rule 2202, On Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options. This rule provides employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes to comply with CAA and CCAA requirements and with California Health and Safety Code section 40458. It applies to employers who employ 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a work site. Discussion a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The emission inventories used to develop the SCAB's air quality attainment plans are based primarily on projected population growth and vehicle miles traveled(VMT) for the region, which are based, in part, on the planned growth identified in regional and community plans. The SCAQMD's Air Quality Attainment plan is based on general plan projections for each of the cities and counties that fall within the ' South Coast Air Basin. Here, the proposed project would be consistent with the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations. Therefore, it would be consistent with the population growth and VMT projections contained in SCAQMD's Air Quality Attainment Plan. The proposed project would not interfere with the region's ability to attain or maintain state and national ambient air quality standards. Thus,implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any air quality planning efforts a there would be no impact. g and b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed below, implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term construction and long term operational criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions. Short-Term Construction Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors During construction of the proposed project,criteria air pollutant(and precursor)emissions would be temporarily and intermittently generated from a variety of sources. As mentioned in the project description, the proposed project would require the demolition of approximately 13,000 square feet of the existing Rusnak In addition,project related site preparation would generate fugitive particulate matter p ' emissions. Fugitive PM dust emissions are primarily associated with g usnak transport and vary as a function of parameters such as soil silt content and ground disturbance and material (PM)dust disturbance area, and the intensity of activity moisture, wind speed, acreage of diesel equipment,material transport trips, and construction wo ker-octmmutequipment. trips also contribute Exhaust emissions from increases in PM emissions,but to a lesser extent. Exhaust emissions from these construction-related m sources would also include ROG and NOx. In addition,the application of Bute to short-term and exterior surface painting)would result in off-gas emissions of ROG. mobile architectural coatings (i.e.,interior Construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were modeled in accordance wi SCAQMD-recommended methodologies using project specifications(e.g., demolition square footage with to be imported,construction schedule, equipment list and duration), and default settings and parameters contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model-2011 (CAL-EEMOD). The modeled o ' volume summarized in Table AQ-1. ed emissions are RUSnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 12 of 50 FORM"J" Table AQ-1 Summary of Modeled Short-Term Construction Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Construction Activity R (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day) Y) Demolition and Construction 718 73.17 6.60 4.63 SCAQMD Threshold of Significance 100 150 55 Notes: As demonstrated by Table AQ-1,project-generated emissions from construction would not violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation including the nonattainment status of the South Coast Air Basin for 03,PM10, or PM2.5 Furthermore,the proposed project would be required to comply with existing SCAQMD Rules and Regulations regarding air quality. Through implementation of Best Management Practices currently required by the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations, and the implementation of Standard Conditions SC1-4 below,the project's projected emissions would be further reduced. As a result, this impact would be less than significant. Long-Term Operational Related Regional Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would include the long-term operation of a high-end car dealership which would result in the presence of additional vehicles on the project site for sales and service. Customers and employees coming to the project site are anticipated to result in approximately 125 net new daily car trips. All new vehicles held for sale on the project site will be required to meet the state's current emissions standards. SCAQMD provides a screening methodology to determine project impacts from localized carbon monoxide (CO)emissions. This screening methodology the n utilized inal traffic analyze tudy condu0cted,the proposed project would of this project. According to the addendu o m not impact any of the surrounding intersections such that Level of Service(LOS)would be reduced below LOS E.Consequently,project-generated long-term operation related local mobile source emissions of CO would not violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As a result,this impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. South Coast Air Basin ore develolyment projects nonattainment ontribute to thee region's ozone,PMIO and PM2.5 standards. Past,present and future development air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. By its very nature,air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to,by itself,result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project's individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. As explained in SCAQMD's CEQA Guidelines, and consistent with CEQA, if a project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable,then the project's impact on air quality would be considered significant. If a project exceeds the identified significance threshold,its emissions would be cumulatively considerable,resulting in an adverse air quality impact. As explained above in response to threshold(b),the proposed project would not result in the emission of pollutants in excess of the SCAQMD significance m�ative lsconsiderablet This would be a less than of criteria pollutants and precursors would not be Y significant impact. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 13 of 50 FORM"J" d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Less Than Significant Impact. The closest sensitive receptors to and residential uses, which are located a the project site is the receptors are actually closer to the current showroom and service area. Arroyo Pacific school approximately 50 yards to the northwest of the project site. These to the east, surrounded by commercial uses. As discussed in response The new showroom will project bull implementation would not result in significant regional or local implementation construction or u would not result l related sign activities. Thus, r to of threshold(b)above,ant r built precursors emissions would not operat sensitive r la receptors to substantial p emissions of criteria air pollutant and d precursors less than si project-generated criteria air pollutant and precursor gmficant• ial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be Toxic Air Contaminants Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in short-term construction equipment. Particulate ort term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site articulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines(diesel P as a toxic air contaminant(TAC)by ARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation site as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts a sdi s discussed The dose outweighs which the potential are exposed PM)were identified pcs n of diesel PM, discussion.n. The dose s toxic which air receptors a e exposemission d the re (ARB 200 de so is the al focus risk this potential of the exposure ttoxc a contaminant a substance T or substances in primary factor exceed to applicable determine heads risk is the function of the concentration osc is positively correlated with substances levels that exceed and the ble standofe . to higher exposure level for the maximally correlated with individual.i n the that lnger and shedperiod of would re exposure in a meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer une Thus, the period estimated for a ding to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,h exposure of sensitive Environmental to TAC emissions, should be based g period of time. According determine the such assessments should re be o s to A the period/duratio delta ri7k year exposu, which however,the such 2001), n of activities associated with sthe period; prof t proposed project The primary source of diesel PM from the proposed project would be from construction-related exhaust from off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment). Sensitive receptors surrounding the project t siiei include (de residential uses and the Arroyo Pacific School. Based on the emission modeling shown above under thelude discussion of threshold"b",the highest level of PM g eve under the the worst construction day would be 6.60 lbs/day. This clevelnissubstantially.lower thantthe thresho d occur 150 on lbs/day established by the SCAQMD. Additionally,the construction phase is estimated to last approx mately 10 months with the peak construction in the first f4 months and only allowed to take place Monday to Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Typically, there are fewer people in their homes during the time when construction would take place. Thus, considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM(Zhu and Hinds 200Z),the substantially low amount of emissions predicted from this project, and the short duration and tI'liC11011 activities, COristructio re ated activiti s would not be anticipated to result in the � o substantia l pollutant�Qrs t As a C Of an automobile sales and service business. �, Q tors to T C� O ,term operation exposure of sensitive recap A , ,.• Ih� ` ' the +�roect-generated i I i 1 1 1 i unpleasan t,leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. s that r c person 402) not discharge e(Health and Safety Code section 41700 and District Rule 402)established by the The general provides rul ( discharge from SCAQMD Provides the basis for offensive odors thresholds. It states er the comfort, whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which which endanger any source considerable number of persons or to the public, repose,health al h annoyance or s a safety of any of an such persons or the public,or which cause,or have to a odors emanating from injury or alm g safety any ert The provisions of this rule do not f apply or animals."emanating of Arcadia injury t damage ti business or property.growing of crops or the raising agricultural operations necessary General Plan Update EIR 2010.) not one of the ion of the proposed project would not result in mowmajor oduce odors[landfill,not roaster, Implementation equipment during construction activities common types t facilities nor includes odors from he use of on-site equip would be i treatment facility]). and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase ind distance. would be intermittent and sensitive receptors neaa substantial an istin number of In addition,operation of the project would not result in locating Thus,project implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting source impact would be less than people. As a result,this imp For items IIIa-e,the following Standard Conditions shall be required. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the action, and environmentally safe SC-l: Soil st ruction site Constru for over four days. e portions of the construction site th are it inactive and watered days. If l construction site daily. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll comp no rtherol adingals, x shall ti applied to p for the area, the area la further dsca pegrading is or excavation periodically are eatedewf safe dust suppressants, to prevent landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally saf excessive fugitive dust. SC-2: Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on- on-site driveways is and adjacent the adjacent ad sett least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, t and roads. SC-3: On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. SC-4: Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent residential uses).A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will be line-up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction. Less Than Significant Potentially Wig Issues: Significant Lt SS BIOLOGIC AI RESOURCES. I/. , SS 1111 project: Would the lmpact gation C, MA. 1 I. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Less Than Significant Impact. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site is the Arroyo Pacific school and residential uses, which are located approximately 50 yards to the northwest of the project site.These receptors are actually closer to the current showroom and service area.The new showroom will be built further to the east, surrounded by commercial uses. As discussed in response to threshold(b)above,project implementation would not result in significant regional or local emissions of criteria air pollutant or precursors from construction or operational related activities. Thus,project-generated criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site construction equipment. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel-fueled engines(diesel PM)were identified as a toxic air contaminant(TAC)by ARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (ARB 2003), so is the focus of this discussion. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk(i.e., potential exposure to toxic air contaminant(TAC) emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time,meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus,the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,health risk assessments,which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the proposed project (OEHHA 2001). The primary source of diesel PM from the proposed project would be from construction-related activities(e.g., exhaust from off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment). Sensitive receptors surrounding the project site include residential uses and the Arroyo Pacific School. Based on the emission modeling shown above under the discussion of threshold"b",the highest level of PMI0(combined dust and diesel exhaust)that would occur on the worst construction day would be 6.60 lbs/day. This level is substantially lower than the threshold of 150 lbs/day established by the SCAQMD. Additionally,the construction phase is estimated to last approximately 10 months with the peak construction in the first 4 months and only allowed to take place Monday to Saturday from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. Typically,there are fewer people in their homes during the time when construction would take place. Thus, considering the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM(Zhu and Hinds 2002),the substantially low amount of emissions predicted from this project,and the short duration and daily timing of construction activities,construction-related activities would not be anticipated to result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed project would include the long-term operation of an automobile sales and service business.As a result,operation of any stationary sources would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions that exceed SCAQMD's significance threshold. Thus, in regard to both project-generated construction and operational TACs,this impact would be considered less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency,and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm,they still can be very Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 14 of 50 FORM"J" unpleasant,leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. The general nuisance rule(Health and Safety Code section 41700 and District Rule 402)established by the SCAQMD provides the basis for offensive odors thresholds. It states that"A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance,or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule do not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals." (City of Arcadia General Plan Update EI .2010.) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of odor(e.g.,not one of the common types of facilities nor includes activities that are known to produce odors [landfill, coffee roaster, wastewater treatment facility]). Minor odors from the use of on-site equipment during construction activities would be intermittent and temporary, and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. In addition, operation of the project would not result in locating sensitive receptors near an existing odor source. Thus,project implementation would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. As a result,this impact would be less than significant. For items IIIa-e,the following Standard Conditions shall be required. SC-1: Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site daily. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction, and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. SC-2: Street Sweeping. Construction contractors shall sweep all on-site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day,preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over the adjacent streets and roads. SC-3: On-site equipment shall not be left idling when not in use. SC-4: Staging areas for heavy-duty construction equipment shall be located as far as possible from sensitive receptors (i.e. adjacent residential uses).A staging plan showing where the construction trucks will be line-up and a truck route map shall be provided to the Development Services Director or designee for review and approval prior to construction. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ 0 either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 15 of 50 FORM"J" 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? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? I) Conflict with the provisions of an ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Environmental Setting The project site is located within an existing urban area of the City of Arcadia on a developed and fully disturbed site. Additionally,the project site is surrounded on all sides by development of other buildings, parking lots, and/or roadway infrastructure. There are no trees on site that could serve as suitable habitat for nesting birds or raptors. Discussion a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is located on land that is fully developed. No habitat for candidate, sensitive or special status species is located on the project site. Therefore,the proposed project would not result in adverse Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 16 of 50 FORM"J" effects on any sensitive species identified in local or regional plans policies or regulations or identified by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no impact. - b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is located on land that is developed. No riparian vegetation or sensitive natural communities occur on the project site. Therefore,the proposed project would not result in adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the US Fish and Wildlife Service. No impact would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 440 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? No Impact. There are no wetlands or jurisdictional waters on or near the project site. Therefore,the project would not remove, fill,or hydrologically interrupt federally protected wetlands. No impact would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. There are no wildlife corridors on the project site as the site is in the middle of an urban community and is surrounded by development on all sides. The site is currently developed and is not used by wildlife as a corridor or for movement. Therefore,the proposed project would not impede wildlife movement through the site and no impact would occur. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. On January 21, 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1962 recognizing oak trees as significant aesthetic and ecological resources and establishing criteria for the preservation of oak trees. The regulations (Chapter 7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code)provide that the following oak trees shall not be removed,relocated, damaged,or have their protected zones encroached upon unless an Oak Tree Permit is granted. 1. Engelmann Oaks(Quercus Engelmannii)or Coast Live Oak, California Live Oak(Quercus Agrifolia)which have a trunk diameter larger than four(4)inches measured at a point four and one half(4 '/2)feet above the crown root, or,two(2)or more trunks measuring three (3) inches each or greater in diameter,measured at a point four and one half(4 '/z) feet above the crown root. 2. Any other living oak tree with a trunk diameter larger than twelve(12)inches measured at a point four and one half(4 '/z) feet above the crown root,or,two(2)or more trunks measuring ten(10) inches each or greater in diameter measured at a point four and one half(4 '/s)feet above the crown root. There are no protected oak trees on-site. Therefore,the proposed project would not impact oak trees and would not conflict with the Arcadia Oak Tree Regulations. There would be no impact. 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? Rusnak Conditional Use Pennit—9/19/13 Page 17 of 50 FORM"J" No Impact. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation Plans; or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City of Arcadia. There would,therefore,be no conflict with any such provisions with the proposed project. No impact would occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change El ❑ in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§ 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change ® El in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a El E ® O unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, E ® ❑ including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Environmental Setting Background information on cultural resources for the project area was obtained from review of the City's General Plan Update EIR. The City has a rich history marked by several known historic and archeological resources. According to the General Plan EIR,there are no known paleontological resources or human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries,within the City's limits. Discussion a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. There are no historical resources located on the project site. Therefore,no impact would occur to any buildings or structures listed on the State Office of Historic Preservation's(OHP)California Register or the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore,the proposed project would not result in a"substantial adverse change"to the immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially altered. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.) Therefore,the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. No impact would occur b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Rusnak Conditional Use Pennit—9/19/13 Page 18 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would involve no soil disturbance (i.e.,grading,excavating,etc.)in previously undisturbed areas.No known archaeological sites are documented within the project site,and the site has been previously developed and graded. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above,there are no known paleontological resources within the City's limits. No unique paleontological or geologic features exist on site. d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. No evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-era marked or unmarked interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Further,the site has been previously developed and graded for prior land uses. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to [] [ E] potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake E ® El fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 E ® El iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ® El including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? El ® El b) Result in substantial soil erosion or El El E the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil El E law that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 19 of 50 FORM"J" d) Be located on expansive soil,as E ® ❑ defined in Table 18 1 B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately fl 0 0 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Environmental Setting Local Soil The U.S. Department of Agriculture's(USDA's)Report and General Soil Map for Los Angeles County identifies soil associations in the City of Arcadia as consisting primarily of Hanford soils, with Vista Amargosa soils at the northeastern end and Tujunga-Soboba soils at the southeastern end(USDA 1969). Hanford soils are found on gently sloping alluvial fans. These soils are well-drained and have moderately rapid soil permeability. They are slightly acidic to mildly alkaline. Hanford soils have low shrink-swell potential and low corrosivity. They have slight limitations for shallow excavation and as septic tank filter fields. Erosion hazard is slight to moderate(USDA 1969). The Tujunga-Soboba soil association is made of up to 60 percent Tujunga soils and 30 percent Soboba soils, with the remaining 10 percent consisting of sandy and cobble material in the beds of intermittent streams. Tujunga soils have rapid soil permeability and are slightly acidic to mildly alkaline. Gravel and cobble make up 35 percent of the Soboba soils. Tujunga-Soboba soils have low shrink-swell potential and low corrosivity. Soil erosion hazard is slight to moderate from water and moderate to high from wind(USDA 1969). Vista-Amargosa soils are found in steep mountainous areas. Vista soils make up 45 percent of the association, with Amargosa soils making up 40 percent. The remaining 15 percent consist of 5 percent Godde soils, 5 percent Saugus soils, and 5 percent rock land. Vista soils are well drained and have moderately rapid soil permeability. Sheet and rill erosion are moderate on Amargosa soils,which has led to the removal of 25 or 40 percent of the surface soils,with rock outcrops covering 2 to 10 percent of the surface. Vista-Amargosa soils have low shrink-swell potential and low corrosivity. Soil erosion hazard is high to very high(USDA 1969). Faults and Seismicity Within Los Angeles County,numerous regional and local faults are capable of producing severe earthquakes (magnitude [M] of 6.0 or greater). Active and potentially active faults that cross the City of Arcadia include the Raymond fault(also known as the Raymond Hill fault),the Sierra Madre fault, and Eaton Wash groundwater barrier,with the Upper Elysian Park blind thrust and Puente Hills blind thrust underlying areas that could cause folding and uplift in the City. Others faults located near the City(within ten miles)include the Clamshell-Sawpit,Verdugo-Eagle Rock,Alhambra Wash,Whittier,and San Jose faults. Discussion a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 20 of 50 FORM"J" i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault? Less Than Significant Impact. A number of existing regulations prevent development over a fault trace or protect structures and infrastructure from surface rupture hazards. Specifically, compliance with seismic design criteria in the CBC would promote the structural integrity of structures and infrastructures near faults. (See Standard Condition 4.6-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Compliance with AP Zone requirements for detailed fault investigations would identify the presence of a fault trace on a development site. (See Standard Condition 4.6-2 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Setbacks from the zone of previous ground rupture is required by the City's Special Studies Geologic Zones Code would preclude the development of structures intended for human occupancy over a potentially active, or an active fault trace,and require a setback requirement of at least 50 feet or greater for high risk structures, such as schools,hospitals, and buildings over 2 stories high. (See Standard Condition 4.6-3 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Disclosure of a site's location within a Special Studies Zone during real estate transactions would also reduce risks to development. (See Standard Condition 4.6-4 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore,with implementation of existing regulations,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. Geotechnical studies for the proposed project have not been prepared to evaluate the suitability of project site soils for the potential for seismic induced settlement. If a seismic event occurs at a nearby fault, seismic induced settlement could affect the project site. The extent of damage would depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. Consistent with the City's Standard Conditions of Approval,the project shall comply with the seismic design criteria in the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore,with implementation of existing regulations,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of strength in saturated,loose to medium dense,granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. Geotechnical studies have not been conducted to address the liquefaction potential at the project site. During a seismic event,the extent of damage from ground failure including liquefaction would depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. Consistent with City policy, the project shall comply with the seismic design criteria in the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, with implementation of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is a relatively flat site and,therefore,would not be subject to landslides. This would be a less than significant impact. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? No Impact. The proposed project site is currently fully developed and disturbed with impervious surfaces. The proposed project would not cause substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore,no impact would occur. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 21 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Impact. As described in response to threshold(a)(iii) above, liquefaction impacts are considered less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks of life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that are high in expansive clays or silts and that swell and shrink with wetting and drying, respectively. This shrinking and swelling can result in differential ground movement,which can cause damage to foundations. However,proper fill selection,moisture control,and compaction during construction can prevent these types of soils from causing significant damage. The soils on-site have a moderate shrink/swell potential and could have the potential to create risk to life or property if the soils are not properly compacted. Consistent with City policy,the project shall comply with the seismic design criteria in the CBC. (See Standard Condition 4.6-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore, with implementation of existing regulations, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed project would not include the use of septic systems. Therefore,no impact would occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, 0 0 ® ❑ either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, 0 0 ® ❑ policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Environmental Setting Certain gases in the earth's atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases(GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth's surface temperature. GHGs are responsible for"trapping"solar radiation in the earth's atmosphere, a phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect. Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide(CO2),methane,nitrous oxide,hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth's climate,known as global climate change or global warming. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without the contribution from human activities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007). By adoption of Assembly Bill(AB) 32,the California Global Warming Solutions Act Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 22 of 50 FORM"J" of 2006,and Senate Bill(SB)97,the State of California has acknowledged that the effects of GHG emissions cause adverse environmental impacts. AB 32 mandates that emissions of GHGs must be capped at 1990 levels by the year 2020(H&SC section 38530). Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis,to global climate change. Although the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. Legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context for and a process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small (on a global basis) additions. Small contributions to this cumulative impact(from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time)may be potentially considerable and therefore significant. Discussion a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction Greenhouse Gas Emission Less Than Significant Impact. Carbon Dioxide(CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas that would be emitted during project construction. Emissions would be associated with mobile-source exhaust from worker commute trips,haul truck trips, and equipment used on site(e.g.,pavers, lifts). While emissions of other GHGs such as methane(CH4)and nitrous oxide(N20) are important with respect to global climate change,the emission levels of these GHGs for the sources associated with project activities are nominal compared with CO2 emissions, even considering their higher global warming potential. Therefore, all GHG emissions for construction are reported as CO2. GHG emissions associated with the project were modeled in accordance with SCAQMD-recommended methodologies using project specifications and default settings and parameters contained in the California Emissions Estimator Model-2011 (CAL-EEMOD). CAL-EEMOD allows for the input of project-specific information to estimate emissions generated by worker commute trips, on-site equipment, and haul truck trips. Input parameters were based on project-specific information, default model settings,and reasonably conservative assumptions. The modeled yearly emissions are summarized in Table GHG-1. As shown from the emission estimate in Table GHG-1,the emissions from this project would be minor. Table GHG-1 Summary of Modeled Construction GHG Emissions Project Option Total CO2 MT/yr Proposed Project 351.65 Notes:CO2=carbon dioxide;GHG=greenhouse gas;MT/yr=metric tons per year. Values from URBEMIS were converted from short tons per year to metric tons per year. See Appendix A for detailed modeling results. Source:Modeling Conducted by City of Arcadia,2013.Methodology by Rincon Consultants,2012. The construction phase would be relatively short,and the associated emissions would not be substantial. For these reasons, it is unlikely that the construction of this project would conflict with the goals of AB 32. Therefore,the proposed project would have a less-than-cumulatively considerable and,therefore,less than significant construction impact on climate change. Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 23 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would introduce a new mobile source of greenhouse gas emissions to the project site.Using the CAL-EEMOD inputs and tables for this project, it is estimated that overall operational emissions from this project will be 1945.62 MT/yr. The recommended threshold set by the SCAQMD is 3,000 MT/yr to be considered cumulatively to have an impact(Rincon Consultants, 2012). b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact. The principal overall state plan and policy is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This goal has been calculated by various methods as reducing 2020 GHG emissions by 28 to 30 percent compared to"business as usual". The project falls within the parameters set by the City of Arcadia General Plan Environmental Impact Report(2010)as well as the City's Energy Action Plan(2012). Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 ® ❑ public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 ® ❑ public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 ® ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is 0 ❑ 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? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 24 of 50 FORM"J" e) For a project located within an El El El 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 El El E private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or El El El physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a El El El significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Environmental Setting A computerized data search of various agency lists was conducted for the project site and surrounding area to identify potential hazardous contamination sites. There are no facilities on or adjacent to the project site that are listed as a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA) generators of hazardous waste,according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's(EPA's)Envirofacts Web database(EPA 2011)and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)EnviroStor Database (DTSC 2011 Discussion a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project does not involve the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials. However,as part of the proposed project,one building totaling approximately 14,000 square feet would be demolished. It is possible that the buildings to be demolished may contain asbestos, lead based paint,or other hazardous building materials. In the event that such hazardous materials are brought transported on-or off-site,the project would be required to comply with the City's standard conditions regarding the routine transport of hazardous materials. (See Standard Conditions 4.7-1.) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As part of the proposed project, a portion of one building totaling approximately 14,000 • - -: . - -: •• - •• . = ,!!! square feet would be demolished. It is possible that the buildings to be demolished may contain asbestos, lead based paint, or other hazardous building materials. Moreover, during construction of the proposed project,hazardous materials such as fuels Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 25 of 50 FORM"J" and lubricants would be used to operate construction equipment such as backhoes,loaders, excavators, and compaction machines. Fuels and lubricants have the potential to be released into the environment at the project site,causing environmental and/or human exposure to these hazards. However, consistent with the City's standard policies, any and all hazardous materials used or present on-site, including asbestos and lead based paint,shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the then existing applicable laws and regulations. (See Standard Conditions 4.7-6 and 4.7-7 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Therefore,through compliance with existing state and local regulations regarding hazardous building materials,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The proposed project site is within one-quarter mile of an existing school(Arroyo Pacific),but no hazardous materials, substances, or waste will be emitted by this project. Standard Conditions govern the grading and construction period, and the project will be a simple retail use with highly regulated service component.The service component will occur within an enclosed building, unlike the current use,which has some open air service uses. Therefore,the project's impact would be less than significant. 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? No Impact. The project area is not identified by EPA or DTSC as a hazardous materials site(EPA 2011; DTSC 2011). Thus,the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment as a result of existing hazardous material contamination. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,whether such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest general aviation airport,the El Monte Airport, is located approximately 5.5 miles from the project site. All Runway Protection Zones for the El Monte Airport are located within the City of El Monte. However,the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport extends into the southern portion of the City of Arcadia. The project site is not located within the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport. The proposed project would not affect airport safety. Therefore,no impact would occur. fj For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. No private air strips occur within or near the project area. The proposed project does not include any structures of significant height or include any activities that would impair operations of air safety of these private air transport facilities. It should be noted that the proposed project contemplates construction of a three (3)(2)two-story building. Two multi-story buildings are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site which are taller than the proposed building. Therefore, no impact would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. Because the proposed project would be contained within an existing developed site,the proposed project would not permanently impair implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As a result,no impacts are anticipated. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 26 of 50 FORM"J" No Impact. As explained above,the project site and its surrounding environment are completely built. The threat of wildland fires in the urban core of the City is minimal. Therefore,there would be no wildland fire risks associated with development of the project. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) During project construction,will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirement,including the terms of t he City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? b) After the project is completed,will El CI ® El it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,including the terms of the City's municipal separate sewer system permit? c) Provide substantial additional El E ® El sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas;loading docks; other areas where materials are stored, vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained,waste is handled,or hazardous materials are handled or delivered;other outdoor work areas; or other sources? d) Discharge stormwater so that one or El E ® El more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing;shellfish harvesting;provision of freshwater, estuarine,wetland,marine,wildlife or biological habitat;water contact or non-contact recreation;municipal and domestic supply;agricultural supply;and groundwater recharge. e) Discharge stormwater so that El E ® El significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 27 of 50 FORM"J" f) Violate any water quality standards ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or waste discharge requirements? g) Substantially deplete groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? h) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? i) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? j) Significantly increase erosion,either on or off-site? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ k) Create or contribute runoff water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 1) Significantly alter the flow velocity ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ n) Place housing within a 100-year ❑ ❑ ❑ flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 28 of 50 FORM"J" o) Place within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ 0 0 area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? p) Expose people or structures to a 0 significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? q) Expose people or structures to 0 0 0 inundation by seiches,tsunami,or mudflow? Environmental Setting The proposed project site is currently built and fully developed. As explained above,the Property contains an existing vacant retail building and a parking lot. In addition,the existing Rusnak dealership is fully built and operational. The site is covered in imperious surfaces. Discussion a) During project construction,will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water runoff from the proposed project construction site could contain pollutants such as soils and sediments that are released during demolition, grading and excavation activities and petroleum-related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Other common pollutants that may result from construction activities include solid or liquid chemical spills; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, acids, lime, plaster, and cleaning agents; and heavy metals from equipment. Construction runoff would flow into the storm drain inlets in the City or in the surrounding area and would enter into Eaton Wash,Arcadia Wash, Santa Anita Wash, Sierra Madre Wash,or Sawpit Wash,which are connected to the Rio Hondo and the Los Angeles River.With segments of the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles River considered as impaired water bodies,pollutants in the storm water could add to further degradation of water quality and violation of TMDLs for the Rio Hondo and Los Angeles River. However,the CWA establishes a framework for regulating potential water quality impacts from construction activities through the NPDES program. Construction activities that disturb one acre or more of land are required to obtain an NPDES permit from the SWRCB,Division of Water Quality. Coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit is accomplished by completing and filing a PRD with the SWRCB prior to commencement of construction activities. The determination of Risk Level 1,2,or 3 for a development project would be made at the time of PRD submittal. The BMPs set forth in the SWPPP and implemented during construction activities that are most often used include(1)erosion-control BMPs such as hydraulic mulch, soil binders, and geotextiles and mats to stabilize soils; (2)temporary drainage swales to divert runoff from exposed soils; (3)sediment controls such as fiber rolls along disturbed areas,temporary desilting basins, and gravel bags around storm drain inlets; (4)watering of exposed soils and covering stockpiles of soil; (5) stabilization of construction entrance/exit points to reduce tracking sediments; and(5)timing of grading to avoid the rainy season(November through April). According to the City's standard conditions,the proposed Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 29 of 50 FORM"J" project would be required to obtain an NPDES permit. (See Standard Condition 4.8-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Provisions of the 2007 California Building Code,grading permit requirements and conditions,and Arcadia Municipal Code provisions include elements that require reduction of erosion and sedimentation impacts. The project applicant/developer's full compliance with the NPDES General Permit No CAR000002 for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity(or the latest approved general permit)is required. (See Standard Condition 4.8-1 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Pursuant to permit requirements,the project applicant/developer shall develop a PRD(including an SWPPP)that incorporates BMPs for reducing or eliminating construction-related pollutants in the site runoff and for ongoing monitoring of site runoff water quality. See discussion of City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit below in response to threshold (b). As a result, compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit and Title 24 Green Building Standards, would reduce short-term,general construction-related water quality impacts to surface water and to groundwater to levels considered less than significant;no mitigation is required. b) After the project is completed,will it create or contribute runoff water that would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,including the terms of the City's municipal separate stormwater sewer system permit? Less Than Significant Impact: The Los Angeles County NPDES MS4 Permit calls for new development and major redevelopment projects to prepare individual SUSMPs that identify the potential pollutants that would be generated by the project and the site. (See Standard Condition 4.8-2 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) SUSMPs are also required for the following activities: vehicle or equipment fueling areas; vehicle or equipment maintenance areas, including washing and repair; commercial or industrial waste handling or storage; outdoor handling or storage of hazardous materials; outdoor manufacturing areas; outdoor food handling or processing; outdoor animal care,confinement, or slaughter; or outdoor horticulture activities. The SUSMP must include a drainage concept and storm water quality plan that reduces peak storm water runoff discharge rates; conserves natural areas; minimizes storm water pollutants of concern;protects slopes and channels;provides storm drain system stenciling and signage;properly designs outdoor material storage areas and trash storage areas; and provides proof of ongoing BMP maintenance through structural or treatment-control BMPs. Satisfaction of MS4 Permit requirements for new development(SC 4.8-2), with preparation of a SUSMP by individual projects, would comply with the water quality standards for storm water runoff. Additionally,the City also prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water and requires development projects to provide best management practices to reduce pollutants in the storm water, under Article VII, Chapter 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code. (See Standard Condition 4.8-3 in General Plan Update EIR 2010.) Compliance with these regulations would reduce storm water pollution in the long term. Compliance with these existing regulations would prevent long-term water quality impacts from the project development. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. c) Provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff from delivery areas; loading docks; other areas where materials are stored,vehicles or equipment are fueled or maintained,waste is handled,or hazardous materials are handled or delivered; other outdoor work areas; or other sources? Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes high-end luxury vehicle sales and a service center. It is possible that sources of polluted runoff could originate from the lot where the for-sale vehicles are parked and from the delivery areas,loading docks and the service center. However, as explained above,the project's compliance with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit,Title 24 Green Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 30 of 50 FORM"J" Building Standards,MS4 Permit requirements for new development including preparation of a SUSMP, and Article VII, Chapter 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code,which prohibits discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water system and requires installation of best management practices to reduce pollutants in stormwater, would all ensure that polluted runoff impacts would be less than significant. d) Discharge stormwater so that one or more beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit are impaired? Beneficial uses include commercial and sportfishing; shellfish harvesting; provision of freshwater,estuarine,wetland,marine,wildlife or biological habitat; water contact or non-contact recreation; municipal and domestic supply; agricultural supply; and groundwater recharge. Less Than Significant Impact: Refer to responses to thresholds(a)-(b) above.The site is currently completely impervious,with parking lots,buildings and hardscape covering virtually 100%of the property. The SUSMP required for the new project will improve discharge in that more stormwater will be retained on site and less sheetflow will occur. e) Discharge stormwater so that significant harm is caused to the biological integrity of waterways or water bodies? Less Than Significant Impact: Refer to responses to thresholds(a)-(b)above. fj Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? m) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to responses to thresholds(a)-(b)above. g) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? No Impact. As explained above,the proposed project site is currently covered by impervious surfaces. Groundwater recharge does not occur at the project site. Therefore,to the extent that the proposed project would redevelop the existing site, it would not deplete groundwater supplies or otherwise interfere with groundwater recharge. Thus,no impact would occur. h) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? j) Significantly increase erosion,either on or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above,the proposed project site is currently covered by impervious surfaces. Moreover,the project is located in the City's urban core and is surrounded on all sides by development. Stormwater is currently discharged as sheet flow across the existing paved site into the adjacent drainage facilities in the street.The SUSMP required for the new project will improve discharge in that more stormwater will be retained on site and less sheet flow will occur.There are no streams or rivers on or near the project site. The proposed project would not substantially change this drainage pattern and would not lead to erosion either on or off-site. Therefore,impacts would be less than significant. 1) Significantly alter the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff in a manner that results in environmental harm? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 31 of 50 FORM"J" i) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above, the proposed project site is currently covered by impervious surfaces and the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing site drainage pattern. Moreover,because the site is currently covered by pavement and existing buildings and because the proposed project would be substantially similar in terms of the amount of impervious surface,neither the rate nor the amount of surface runoff would substantially change. If anything,the required SUSMP will improve site drainage in that more stormwater will be required to be retained on site and less sheet flow will occur. Moreover,there are no streams or rivers on or near the project site that would be altered as a result of the project. Further,the best practices required as part of the SUSMP for the project will actually reduce sheet flow from the site and,therefore,the proposed project would not change the flow velocity or volume of stormwater from the site. As a result, runoff from the proposed project would not result in flooding on-or off- site. Therefore,there would be a less than significant impact. k) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above,the proposed project would be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a condition of the issuance of that permit, the applicant must implement various minimum Best Management Practices to minimize polluted runoff. With implementation of those Best Management Practices,the proposed project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff into the City's existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Therefore,this impact would be less than significant. n) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project would not include construction of any housing. The project area is located outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Therefore,no housing would be placed within a flood zone as a result of this project,and no impact would occur. o) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The proposed project site is located outside of the FEMA 100-year floodplain. Therefore,none of the proposed facilities would be subject to significant flooding risks; and,therefore,would not be anticipated to result in impeded or redirected flood flows. No impact would occur. p) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As described above,the entire project area is located outside of the FEMA 100-year flood zone. Additionally,the proposed project would not disturb,disrupt,or otherwise contribute to the failure of any levee, dam, or other flood control structure. Therefore,no impact would occur. (I) Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of any lakes or other large water bodies that would be susceptible to seiche, in the event of seismic activity. Additionally,the project site is not located in the vicinity of any tidally-influenced waters, and is at an elevation above 65 feet sea level. Therefore,the project area would not be susceptible to tsunami. Finally,the project area is situated in the central portion of the City of Arcadia within a large,open expanse of flat topography. As such,the area is not susceptible to large-scale mudflows. No impact would occur. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 32 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ LI L conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Environmental Setting The project site is located in the central portion of the City of Arcadia at the southwest corner of the intersection of Santa Clara Street and Santa Anita Avenue. The project site is surrounded on all sides by a developed environment. Immediately to the north and west,the project site is bordered by Santa Clara Street. To the south,the project site is bounded by Huntington Drive. To the west,the site is bordered by the existing Rusnak car dealership. Properties to the east of the project site are zoned CBD and are developed with commercial, office, and retail land uses. Discussion a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project would be located within an existing commercial zone of the City. Moreover,the project would be located immediately adjacent to the existing Rusnak car dealership. The proposed project would be consistent with the existing uses in the surrounding area. Development of the Property to expand the existing Rusnak dealership would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the existing community by interrupting access or development of physical barriers. Therefore,no impact would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The project site is designated Commercial in the City's General Plan. According to the City's General Plan,the Commercial land use designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of commercial enterprises,including among other things,durable goods. Vehicles are durable goods. Further,the car dealership show room and service center are both commercial enterprises designed to serve the neighborhood and citywide markets. Therefore,the use is consistent with the City's General Plan designation for the site. Moreover,the project is consistent with the site's CBD and C-2 zoning designations because the showroom Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 33 of 50 FORM"J" will include business offices and because the car dealership is a retail establishment. The project will need a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review approval prior to submittal of a building permit. The project will also need a Variance to exceed the height limit in the CBD zone because the project site is a split one. The majority of the site allows up to 65 feet in height while the remainder of the site allows up to 45. Since this is a single-building spanning both zones,the 60 foot height limit is acceptable throughout. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? No Impact. There are no adopted, approved, or proposed Habitat Conservation Plans; Natural Community Conservation Plans; or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plans that cover habitats located within the City of Arcadia. There would,therefore, be no conflict with any such provisions with the proposed project. No impact would occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues: Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would ❑ ❑ ❑ be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ locally-important mineral resource ❑ ❑ recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? Environmental Setting Based on the California Department of Conservation maps,there are no oil, gas, or geothermal resources in the City of Arcadia or the surrounding area(DOGGR 2001). No known mineral resources are located within or adjacent to the project site. Discussion a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site is not located within a mapped mineral resource zone. No loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state would occur. Therefore,no impacts would occur. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan that include the project site. Therefore,no impact would occur. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 34 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic ❑ ❑ ® ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ [❑ private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Environmental Setting The project site is located in the urban core of the City of Arcadia along a commercial strip that is currently built out. There are sensitive receptors to the northwest of the project but these receptors are closer to the existing car sales use. The existing noise environment is primarily influenced by transportation noise from vehicle traffic on the local roadway system(i.e., Santa Clara Street, Santa Anita Avenue, and Huntington Drive). Other noise sources that contribute to the existing noise environment include adjacent commercial enterprises,parking lots,and residences. Transportation related sources are also considered sources of vibration in the project area. Applicable regulations are contained in the City of Arcadia General Plan Noise Element. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 35 of 50 FORM"J" The Environmental Hazards chapter of the current Arcadia General Plan evaluates natural and man-made hazards in the project area and determines appropriate levels of protection through hazard reduction programs for noise, among other things. The Environmental Hazards chapter is the guiding document for the City's noise policy and contains policies designed to protect residents and businesses from excessive and persistent noise intrusions. Table 4.11-3 in the General Plan provides the City's exterior and interior noise levels for each land use category. Below is an excerpt from Table 4.11-3 regarding the interior and exterior noise standards for Commercial and Business Park land uses. EXCERPT FROM TABLE 4.11-3 OF CITY GENERAL PLAN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR NOISE STANDARDS Land Use Noise Level Interior(Leq) I Exterior(CNEL) Commercial and Business Park: Private Office 45 - General Office 50 - Restaurant,Retail Store, etc 55 - Warehousing/Industrial 65 - Discussion a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Short Term Construction Noise Less Than Significant Impact. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project would fluctuate depending on the particular type,number, and duration of usage for the varying equipment. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise environment in the receptor's vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each phase requiring a specific complement of equipment with varying equipment type, quantity, and intensity. These variations in the operational characteristics of the equipment change the effect they have on the noise environment of the project site and in the surrounding community for the duration of the construction process. To assess noise levels associated with the various equipment types and operations,construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes, mobile and stationary. Mobile equipment sources move around a construction site performing tasks in a recurring manner(e.g., loaders, graders, dozers). Stationary equipment operates in a given location for an extended period of time to perform continuous or periodic operations. Operational characteristics of heavy construction equipment are additionally typified by short periods of full- power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling, or powered-off conditions. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 36 of 50 FORM"J" • Additionally when construction-related noise levels are being evaluated,activities that occur during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours are of increased concern. Because exterior ambient noise levels typically decrease during the late evening and nighttime hours as traffic volumes and commercial activities decrease, construction activities performed during these more noise-sensitive periods of the day can result in increased annoyance and potential sleep disruption for occupants of nearby residential uses. The site preparation phase typically generates the most substantial noise levels because the on-site equipment associated with grading, compacting, and excavation are the noisiest. Site preparation equipment and activities include backhoes,bulldozers,loaders, and excavation equipment(e.g., graders and scrapers). Erection of large structural elements and mechanical systems could require the use of a crane for placement and assembly tasks,which may also generate louder noise levels. Based on the information provided in the project description, demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the proposed project would require the types of construction equipment listed in Table NOI-1. It is expected that maximum noise levels would be associated with site preparation activities using excavators and graders. Noise emission levels at 50 feet from these types of construction equipment are shown in Table NOI-1 below. Table NOI-1 Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Type Reference Level(Lm dBA)@ 50 feet Crane 85 Loader 80 Telehandler 85 Backhoe 80 Excavator 85 Grader 85 Asphalt Paver 85 Roller 85 Manlift 85 Truck(cement or water) 84-85 Notes: Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device,per manufacturer specifications.Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. Source:FHWA 2006 Based on the information provided in Table NOI-1 and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment and activity types along with standard attenuation rates, on-site construction-related activities could result in hourly average noise levels of approximately 65 dBA Leg(70 dBA Lmax)at the nearest sensitive receptors(100 yards away). These modeled noise levels would not exceed the applicable daytime and nighttime performance standards defined by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element. Consistent with the City's standard policies,the proposed project would be conditioned to comply with the City's standard hours of construction of Monday through Saturday from 7 AM to 7 PM. Therefore, short-term on-site construction source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards,or a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact would be less than significant. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 37 of 50 FORM"J" Long Term Operational Stationary Source Noise Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expansion of the existing Rusnak car dealership, which would result in mobile source noise impacts as well as stationary source noise impacts from the new dealership. However, general operation of this commercial use in this commercially zoned area would not exceed the applicable daytime or nighttime performance standards defined by the City of Arcadia in the General Plan Noise Element. Therefore,long-term on-site operational-related mobile-source and stationary-source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact is considered less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project may result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration and noise, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Groundbome vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in Table NOI-2. Based on the information provided in the project description and on the types of construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g., site preparation and building erection)it is expected that maximum groundborne vibration and noise levels would be associated with mobile sources. Table NOI-2 Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 feet(w/sec' Blasting ) Approximate (VdB)at 25 feet2 1.13 109 Large Dozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 87 0.089 87 Trucks 0.076 86 Rock Breaker 0.059 83 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Dozer 0.003 58 2 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity Where Lv is the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels(VdB),assuming a crest factor of 4. Source:FTA 2006 According to Federal Transit Administration, levels associated with the use of trucks are 0.076 inches per second(in/sec)and 86 vibration decibels(VdB)at 25 feet. Based on FTA's recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, construction-related project activities would not result in levels at the nearest sensitive receptor(i.e., 100 yards)that exceed Caltrans's recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA's maximum acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses(i.e.,annoyance). Long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of vibration. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of existing off-site sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 38 of 50 FORM"J" f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. As explained above,the nearest airport is the El Monte Airport. The El Monte Airport is a general aviation airport. All Runway Protection Zones for the El Monte Airport are located within the City of El Monte. However,the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport extends into the southern portion of the City of Arcadia. The project site is not located within the airport influence area for the El Monte Airport. Thus,the proposed project would not be located within two miles of a public(or public use)airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. In addition,the proposed project site is not located within a comprehensive land use plan for the El Monte Airport. The project would result in no impact in this regard. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ ❑ growth in an area,either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example,through extension of road or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Environmental Setting The California Department of Finance,Demographic research unit estimates that the total population in the City of Arcadia as of April 1, 2010 was 56,364(Department of Finance 2011). Discussion a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly or indirectly? No Impact. The proposed project does not include a housing component. Therefore,the proposed project would not directly induce population growth. However,the project does involve expanding an existing commercial enterprise. According to information provided by the project proponent,the expanded auto dealership would provide 50 new jobs within the City of Arcadia. The addition of these 50 jobs,however, would not directly or indirectly cause population growth because the wages associated with the positions do not match the housing costs for the area. Wages would be substantially lower than the high cost of residential real estate and rental properties. Therefore,to the extent that the project Would add 50 jobs to the City of Arcadia,it is unlikely that the positions will be filled by the City's residents. Thus,the project would have no impact in this regard. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 39 of 50 FORM"J" b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in displacement of existing housing. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of people. Therefore,no impact would occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse 0 0 ® ❑ 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? 0 0 ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ® 0 Schools? O ❑ ® ❑ Parks? � ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? 0 0 ® ❑ Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project site is Arcadia Fire Station#106 at 710 South Santa Anita Avenue,which is approximately one mile from the project site. Arcadia Police Department provides police services for the City. The nearest police station is located at 250 West Huntington Drive, approximately one-half mile from the site. The project site lies within the boundaries of the Arcadia Unified School District. The District operates six elementary schools,three middle schools, and one comprehensive high schools. The nearest schools to the project site is Arroyo Pacific Academy(private),which is located approximately 100 yards from the site. The nearest City park is Arcadia County Park, which is located one-quarter of a mile from the project site. Amenities at the park include a swimming pool, active fields and play areas,tennis courts, and open green space. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 40 of 50 FORM"J" Discussion a) Result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the development of a currently vacant retail establishment. The Property and surrounding parcels will be significantly improved by the proposed project. As a result,the proposed project would require less municipal services than the currently vacant site. The proposed project is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on emergency,police, or fire services during project construction or operation because it would not increase the demand for these services beyond what is currently required by the current vacant retail establishment. No new or expanded public service facilities or services would be required. Therefore,this is a less than significant impact. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing 0 0 0 neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational El facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Environmental Setting The nearest City park is Arcadia County Park,which is located one quarter mile from the project site. Amenities at the park include a swimming pool, active fields and sports areas,tennis courts, and open green space. Discussion a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. As the proposed project is a commercial enterprise,it would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Consequently,the project would not result in a substantial deterioration of the City's existing recreational facilities. Therefore,there would be no impact in this regard. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 41 of 50 FORM"J" b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project would not increase demands for recreational facilities because no new population growth or housing would occur as a result of the project. Therefore,there would not be a need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. No impact would occur. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ congestion management program, including,but not limited to,level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ patterns,including 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(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ access? ❑ ❑ Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 42 of 50 FORM"J" f) Conflict with adopted policies, ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, or programs regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Environmental Setting Regional access to the project site is provided by Interstate 210 (I-210),a major north-south route interstate highway. Three major local roadways provide access to the project site: Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street,and Huntington Drive. Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive are both Principal Travel Corridors according to the City of Arcadia Circulation Element. At the project site, Santa Anita Avenue is designated as a four(4)lane divided roadway whereas Huntington Drive is designated as four(4)land undivided roadway. Morlan Place is a local commercial street,with one lane in each direction. Discussion a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system,including but not limited to intersections,streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Arcadia General Plan,Arcadia's goal is to ensure mobility within and through the City by maintaining LOS D or better along most roadways where feasible. LOS D is commonly used by cities throughout the nation, and has been used in project-level review by the City of Arcadia.Establishment of the LOS D standard recognizes that some congestion will occur during peak hours,but that roadways will function at much better levels of service during the balance of the day. (General Plan 2010.) Under the LOS D standard, cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods.The associated volume to capacity ratio is 0.801 -0.900. (General Plan 2010.) A Traffic Study was completed for this project by Kimley Horn and Associates(KHA)dated January 9,2013, and an addendum was provided by KHA on September 16,2013. Implementation of the project would result in a temporary increase in vehicle traffic on Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street,Huntington Drive and Morlan Place associated with short-term construction-related activities. A maximum of 30 construction workers would commute to the site on a daily basis;therefore,the project would result in the generation of 60 construction-worker trips per day. Proposed construction-related trips would result in a minor increase(i.e.,less than .3 %)in traffic along local roadways. Level of service and the volume/capacity ratio would not be impacted by the project. Therefore, impacts associated with short-term traffic increases attributable to project construction would not conflict with the applicable General Plan policies regarding traffic. This impact would be less-than-significant. As indicated above,the project would result in 6 10 new full-time positions,which would result in the generation of 4-4 23 net new employee trips per day. Since this use is largely an expansion of the current use, the net change to traffic patterns is very low.The proposed operational-related trips would result in a minor increase in traffic along roadways(125 daily new trips). Level of service and the volume to capacity ratio would be substantially the same at all impacted intersections. Therefore, long-term increases in operational traffic attributable to the project would not conflict with the applicable General Plan policies regarding traffic. This impact would be less-than-significant. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 43 of 50 FORM"J" Automobile sales uses are subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Through this process, specific parking requirements are required based on the operational plan proposed. Arcadia Municipal Code section 9269.5 requires that retail uses provide 5 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area dedicated to the retail use. With approximately 25,000 square feet of showroom proposed, 125 parking spaces would be required for this portion of the site. The remaining 80,000 square feet of service area and 14,000 of remaining employee area would be considered through the Conditional Use process and is based on demand. It is estimated that there will be a need for 75 employee spaces for this project. Taken together,200 parking spaces could be required. The proposed project would include 550 surface parking spaces plus an additional 2 levels of structured parking for inventory. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,including but not limited to,level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. Metro is the agency responsible for oversight and implementation of the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. The 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan provides mobility for Los Angeles County's future by providing new travel options that will serve the County for the next 30 years and beyond. It will improve highway speeds by almost 20 percent and arterial speeds by 15 percent countywide over the no-build scenario. (Metro 2010.) As described in response to threshold(a) above, short-term traffic impacts would be minor relative to existing traffic along the following local arterials Santa Anita Avenue, Santa Clara Street, Huntington Drive and Morlan Place. Over the long-term,proposed traffic volumes would be indistinguishable from existing traffic conditions because only six net new employees would regularly come to the site. In addition,because the proposed use is an improvement and upgrade from the existing use, increases in customer and service traffic will be an insignificant increase from current levels. The proposed project would not impact any roads,highways, or other infrastructure covered by the Congestion Management Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The nearest public airport, El Monte Airport,is located approximately 5.5 miles from the project site. The proposed project does not include any structures of significant height or include any activities that would affect air traffic patterns. Therefore,no impact to air traffic patterns would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? No Impact. The proposed project would be located on a site that is currently developed. The development envelope would not extend beyond the existing built environment. No changes to the existing roadways would occur. Therefore,the project would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. No impact would occur. e) Result in inadequate emergency capacity? No Impact. All construction activity would remain on-site and would not require the closure of any nearby roadways at any time during construction. The project would provide two points of emergency access to and from the site consistent with City policies. Therefore,there would be no impact in this regard. I) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project would not generate the need for alternative transportation. Therefore,the project would not conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation and no impact would occur. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 44 of 50 FORM"J" Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ® ❑ requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? In making this determination,the City shall consider whether the project is subject to the water supply assessment requirements of Water Code Section 10910,et. Seq. (SB 610),and the requirements of Government Code Section 664737 (SB 221). e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? fl Be served by a landfill with ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local ❑ ❑ ® ❑ statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 45 of 50 FORM"J" Environmental Setting STORM DRAINAGE The City of Arcadia Public Works Division is responsible for operation and management of the City storm drain system. WASTEWATER AND SEWER Wastewater conveyance is handled by the City and the LACSD, and wastewater is processed(treated)by the Los Angeles Community Services District. WATER SUPPLY The City of Arcadia supplies water to the majority of development within its corporate boundaries, with approximately 13,400 service connections. Approximately 96 percent of the City is served by the Arcadia water system. Other water suppliers in the City include the Sunny Slope Water Company, East Pasadena Water Company, San Gabriel Valley Water Company(SGVWC),California-American Water Company (CAWC), and the Golden State Water Company(GSWC, formerly Southern California Water Company), which serve small areas along the western and southern boundaries of the City and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (Stetson 2010). Exhibit 4.16-1 shows the service area of the various water companies serving the City. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid waste collection services in the City are provided by private haulers for disposal at area landfills. Waste Management, Inc. (WM) serves single-family residential uses,while multi-family and non-residential uses are served by various commercial waste haulers. Programs that help reduce the amount of residential wastes sent to local landfills include fully automated green waste collection and recycling, weekly recyclables collection, extensive consumer education and information on the City's website, and composting assistance(Hogle- Ireland 2010). The nearest landfill to the City is the Puente Hills Landfill and Materials Recovery Facility(MRF). This facility is owned and operated by the LACSD, and encompasses 1,365 acres with 433 acres of disposal area. The Puente Hills Landfill is permitted to accept 13,200 tons per day(tpd)and currently accepts approximately 9,330 tpd. In 2006, it had a permitted capacity of 106 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 49 million cubic yards(CIWMB 2009). The MRF is a buy-back center that accepts aluminum cans,glass,plastic containers, steel cans,newspapers, cardboard, and electronic wastes of approximately 600 tpd(LACSD 2009). Hazardous materials must be disposed of or transported to a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Class III landfills cannot accept hazardous materials;these must be disposed in a Class I and Class II facility. There are no Class I or Class II landfills in the County of Los Angeles. However, there are two Class I and/or Class II landfills that exist in Central and Southern California that can accept hazardous waste generated within Los Angeles County,identified below: • Kettleman Hills Landfill,Kettleman City,Kings County, California. This is a Class I and Class II permitted landfill that accepts both hazardous and non-hazardous waste with a daily permitted capacity of 8,000 tpd and a remaining capacity of 6 million cubic yards as of 2000(CalRecycle 2010c). • McKittrick Waste Treatment Site,McKittrick,Kern County, California. This facility is a Class II permitted landfill that accepts both hazardous and non-hazardous waste with a daily permitted capacity of 1,180 tpd and a remaining capacity of approximately 840,000 cubic yards as of 2001 (CalRecycle 2010d). Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 46 of 50 FORM"J" moinimmemomponimmimmow Arcadia Reclamation,Inc. operates an inert materials landfill on the former Rodeffer quarry site adjacent to the Interstate 605 (I-605)Freeway at the southeastern end of Arcadia. This site accepts concrete,asphalt, clean dirt,brick,block,rock, sand,rebar, stucco, and reinforced concrete pipe,most of which generally can be classified as construction debris. Once filled,the site is expected to be redeveloped with industrial and/or commercial uses (Hogle-Ireland 2010). Discussion a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. As explained above,the proposed project would be required to comply with all current wastewater and NPDES permitting requirements. As a result,the proposed project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and this impact would be less than significant. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. As explained above,the proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or an expansion of existing facilities. Therefore,there would be no impact in this regard. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project can be served by existing facilities. As the site is currently developed with impervious surfaces,the proposed project would not substantially change the drainage of the site. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Thus,no impacts would occur. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed project would not demand more water than what is currently necessary to serve the existing uses on the Property and at the Rusnak dealership.Thus,the project would not result in substantial water demands that would require new resources. Therefore,no new or expanded water supplies would be needed and no impact would occur. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would be required to connect to the local sewer system. Consistent with the City's standard practice,through the Conditional Use Permit and building permit process, the City's water and wastewater departments will verify adequate capacity and service levels. As the proposed project does not propose uses that would demand greater wastewater services than the current uses,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact in this regard. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction activities would generate minimal solid waste related to excess construction materials and material removed during demolition and site clearing. The quantity of solid Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 47 of 50 FORM"J" waste is not anticipated to affect the capacity of the landfills that serve the City. Disposal of all waste would comply with applicable regulations, including disposal of hazardous materials. As a result, landfill and solid waste impacts would be less than significant. g) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. Refer to the response to threshold(f)above. Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential ❑ ® ❑ ❑ to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental ❑ ❑ ® ❑ goals to the disadvantage of long- term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ® ❑ ❑ are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental ❑ ❑ ® ❑ effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 48 of 50 FORM"J" self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal species or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the Cultural Resources section of this Initial Study,the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts as a result of construction of the proposed project,and would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. However, adoption and implementation of mitigation measures described in this Initial Study would reduce these individual impacts to less-than-significant levels. With regard to all other resources discussed in the Initial Study, impacts would either be less than significant or would have no impact on the existing environment. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. As explained above, the proposed project would comply with federal, state and local regulations designed to protect the long-term integrity of the environment. Given the infill and redevelopment nature of the project,it will help to alleviate conditions of blight,which have potential to cause substantial environmental harm. Moreover,the proposed project would either have no impact or a less than significant impact in nearly every resource category. To the extent that a potential impact could occur to cultural resources,those potential impacts would be fully mitigated with the measures incorporated into this MND. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Cumulative environmental effects are multiple individual effects that,when considered together,would be considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts. Individual effects may result from a single project or a number of separate projects and may occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of time. The purpose of the proposed project is to develop the Property in order to eliminate and prevent blight within the urban core of the City. Through the redevelopment of the project site,the property would be utilized to its maximum potential so as to benefit the City's business and civic environments. A related benefit of the project is that it would attract additional businesses and investment in the community due to the availability of the increased public and private services and economic activity resulting therefrom. The proposed project would not change existing water demands or uses not already planned for and would not affect population growth either directly or indirectly. In addition,construction,operation, and maintenance will not result in any substantial increase in numbers of permanent workers/employees. Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in this Initial Study would reduce the project's impacts to a less-than-significant level,further reducing the project's contribution to environmental impacts to less than cumulatively considerable. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant. No project-related environmental effects were identified that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. This would be a less than significant impact. Source References 1. City of Arcadia General Plan,adopted November 2010 2. City of Arcadia Land Use and Zoning Map,adopted December 7,2010 3. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD),Rules and Regulations,2005. Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 49 of 50 FORM"J" 4. City of Arcadia Urban Water Management Plan,2011 5. City of Arcadia,Noise Regulations, Chapter 6,Article IV,of City of Arcadia Municipal Code 6. Traffic Impact Analysis,prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates,January 9,2013 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).2005.California Environmental Quality Act Air Handbook 8. California Emissions Estimator Model,2011 SCAQMD. 9. Addendum to Traffic Impact Analysis,prepared by Kimley Horn and Associates,September 16,2013 Rusnak Conditional Use Permit—9/19/13 Page 50 of 50 FORM"J" 806 pu a'106'906'506 1706 c).'"o 1aad 00£ :snIavu '£06'Z06'800 Tzo-zco-SLLS :Nzib �N,--In CO . rn rn o .}..11 89L£L ON 1JVH1 L 101 i0 11V ONV"'NOI18Od (7)N Q M M d 9NISSIWHOdN008c1VW33S-d03NI1MO1HON019NI1NONd0 I N U -c 3NI1 N NO3 ONV N0383H1MS H11S VHV1)VINVS AO3NI13S 01 �, `'a c Q M„45,bL�6NHl89 LELONH19101AOHODN1SOW1VWoD101 'NOILdIaJS3O1`d..3 w x L00L6'V�'e!pe»t w m I•- LT SOLL6 V)'euapesed •anyel!uyelves LOl pue'anyel!uyelves L z 1 z 4 m •pA 9 opeJo!oj 1saM SZ£ 'any el!uy clues Sb L'any el!uy clues SS L'Ic m a- 311 el!uy ewes 101 ueiJoW lZ'Id ue!ioyj EE la uol6u!1unk'An SS Illw :(S)a3NMO A.LU3dO2id :SS3dOCIV 31I� r 4-2_1 — _ n T N G .�'q r 6. E i. S'-8 S VS -. o T yr Q u >_ �r l_ J 9 9 i.J �.) - .1 �J MmeII C ,6„, ,,....,_,,A, -..G•- > 0 n *:1:1° � 'sa - m r•L 0 ul 9 N li'a .n!ta Ave N Sai $iit' Au" D .; SaI �r n { ;cl"r Pi 0. ."-- mat 1111 ' O L , ' ' Y 7 /i m 0 "€ 4.L 0 . c1 ' U) C D Q r'a 1 W d I � e N Z ii) 0 Z RESOLUTION NO. 1884 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP 13-11, ZONE VARIANCE NO. ZV 13-02, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 13-32, AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. LLA 13-03 WITH AN INITIAL STUDY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) TO BUILD A NEW SHOWROOM, SERVICE AND PARKING STRUCTURE, AND OTHER ANCILLARY FEATURES FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP AT 101 NORTH SANTA ANITA AVENUE. WHEREAS, on September 18, 2013, Rusnak Mercedes Benz filed Conditional Use Permit Application No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance Application No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and Lot Line Adjustment Application No. LLA 13-03 for an expansion of the Rusnak Mercedes Benz automobile dealership at the property that is located between Huntington Drive, Morlan Place, Santa Clara Street and Santa Anita Avenue and is addressed as 101-111 North Santa Anita Avenue, 55 W. Huntington Drive, 21 Morlan Place, 121-159 N. Santa Anita Avenue, and parcel number 5775-025-025; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State's CEQA Guidelines, the City of Arcadia prepared an Initial Study, and accordingly, also prepared a Negative Declaration, which was considered a part of the review and approval process; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the Negative Declaration was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on May 1, 2013, and circulated for a period of 20 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15072. A Notice of Determination was filed on this project on May 23, 2013. On September 18, 2013 the applicant modified the submitted discretionary applications. A revised Initial Study was completed and recirculated in accordance with the Lead Agency's Guidelines. A Notice of Intent to adopt the revised Negative Declaration was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on September 27, 2013, and circulated for a period of 20 days pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines. The NOI and the public hearing notice were published on September 30, 2013, in the Arcadia Weekly, and sent to all the property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property; and, WHEREAS, during the 20 day comment period, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073, the City received a letter from one regulatory agency, the California Department of Fish &Wildlife; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2013, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data provided by the Development Services Department in the staff report dated October 22, 2013 are true and correct. SECTION 2. That this Commission makes the following findings in granting the Conditional Use Permit per Section 9246.2.9 of the Arcadia Municipal Code and the Zone Variance per Arcadia Municipal Code Section 9291.1.2: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. The proposed expansion of the automobile dealership is consistent with the 2 1884 Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designations of the site and will not have any adverse impacts to the neighboring businesses or properties. It is an expansion of an existing use that has been in the area for more than 10 years. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. In the CBD, Central Business District Zone and the C-2, General Commercial Zone, an automobile dealership is allowed subject to an approved Conditional Use Permit by Sections 9246.2.9 and 9275.1.52.1, respectively of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, and all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. Based on the proposal, including the access to the site, the on-site circulation, and the proposed parking for customers and employees, the site is adequate for the expanded automobile dealership. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. The proposed expanded automobile dealership is surrounded by streets on all four sides, Santa Anita Avenue to the east, Santa Clara Street to the north and west, Morlan Place to the south and east, and Huntington Drive to the south. Both Santa Clara Street and Morlan Place will be used for access to the dealership. There will be no dealership access from Santa Anita Avenue. A center turn lane will be added to Santa Clara Street for the benefit of the dealership and the businesses on the north side of the street. All four streets are more 3 1884 than adequate for the type of traffic that is expected to be generated by the expanded automobile dealership. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. The proposed expansion of the automobile dealership is a use that is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of the site and is identified as an appropriate use in the Economic Development Element of the General Plan. 6. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use of the property, that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same zone or vicinity. The site for the expanded automobile dealership has two zoning designations with overlays for intensified development. The CBD Zone with the Downtown Overlay allows for a maximum height of 45 feet, but the portion of the site that is zoned C-2 has a Special Height Overlay that allows a maximum height of 65 feet. The proposal is for a structure that will have a uniform roof/parapet and be entirely on one site, but the site is subject to different building height limits. Because the expanded automobile dealership will be in one structure, the levels between the showroom portion and the service, parts and parking areas need to be in alignment. The Zone Variance will allow the development based on the greater building height limit so that the entire structure may have a uniform height. 7. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity in which the property is located. The expanded automobile dealership will 4 1884 occupy the entire block and there will not be any adjacent uses. separated from all surrounding uses by public streets The dealership will be treets that will preclude the additional height for the showroom portion of the structure from causing or improvements in the vicinity. sing any injury to the property 8. That such variance is necessary for the preservation substantial property right of the applicant possessed by other and enjoyment of a property in the same zone and vicinity. A site that has two zoning designations with differing and results in requiring a design that would likely ermg regulations is a rare not be cohesive. The ability to have a structure that looks and functions as one facility site. y should be allowed on any 9. That the granting of such variance will not comprehensive general Ian. adversely affect the p An automobile dealership is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, and is consistent with the General Plan Lan despite its being of two zones. The a d Use Designation of the site, dditional height for the showroom portion of the proposed structure is not inconsistent with other structures in inconsistent with the purposes of the Land Use Designations the area and is not of the General Plan for this area. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission Declaration, and approves Conditional Use n adopts the Permit No. CUP 13-11, Zone Variance No. ZV 13-02, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 13-32, and Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA 13-03 for the development of an expansion to the existing Rusnak Mercedes Benz automobile dealership, subject to the following conditions: 1884 1. All areas shall have fire sprinklers per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard, and the system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station, subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. 2. Class I standpipes shall be provided in all stairwells serving the parking garage area on all levels up to the rooftop. 3. One-hour rated occupancy separations shall be provided are required areas (parking garage) and S-1 occupancy areas (auto repair) between S-2 occupan c y showroom/offices) and all openings in one-hour walls shall be and B occupancy a reas (showroom/offices) of the City's Fire protected by 60-minute rated protective devices, subject to the app Marshal. arking public hydrant shall be provided on the northwest side of the p 4. A new p structure on Santa Clara Street, with the specific location and installation subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. es shall be provided adjacent to stairwell exterior doors and adjacent 5. Knox box to the main lobby entrance, subject to the approval of the City's Fire Marshal. 6. An elevator shall be provided to all floors, including the roof level that can accommodate an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) unit for patient transport, subject to approval by the City's Fire Marshal. 7. The exterior glazing of the showroom shall be treated to minimize reflection, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 8. Security cameras to monitor and record activity at outside areas shall be provided as required by the City's Chief of Police. ---_ 6 9. The project shall comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) as prescribed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works SUSMP Manual and the selected measures shall be shown on the grading plan, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. The applicant shall provide calculations prepared by a licensed Civil or Mechanical Engineer to determine the maximum domestic water demand and maximum fire suppression demand in order to verify the required water service size, subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 11. Separate water services and meters shall be provided for domestic use and for irrigation purposes, and the irrigation services shall include a reduced pressure backflow device to separate the irrigation system from the City water supply, subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 12. Fire hydrants installed in the public right-of-way to be dedicated to the City for public use shall be constructed in accordance with City Water Standards, and all fire hydrants installed on the property for private use shall be considered as part of the private fire system and separated from the City water supply by a Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) as required and subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 13. Prior to being issued a permit, the applicant shall file a Water Meter Clearance Application with the Public Works Services Department for approval by the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 14. The applicant shall remove all abandoned driveway approaches; all cracked, damaged, lifted, or non-uniform sidewalk; and replace them with new curb, gutter, and 7 1884 sidewalk as determined to be necessary, and subject to approval by the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 15. The applicant shall determine if the drainage structure in the sidewalk south of Santa Clara Street is no longer in use, and if determined, will remove it completely and fill and compact the subgrade, and replace with new curb, gutter, and sidewalk subject to the approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 16. The applicant shall comply with all of the public improvement requirements included in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), subject to the approval of the City Engineer or his designee. 17. Deliveries and pick-ups shall be conducted only on Morlan Place. 18. New exterior signage shall be subject to a separate sign design review application that is subject to approval by the Development Services Director or his designee. 19. Noncompliance with the plans, provisions and conditions of approval for CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32, and LLA 13-03 shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals, which could result in the closing of the dealership. 20. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, or City Staff, which action is 8 1884 brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter. 21. Approvals of CUP 13-11, ZV 13-02, ADR 13-32, and LLA 13-03 shall not take effect until the applicant, the business owner(s) and operator(s), and the property owner(s) have executed and filed Acceptance Forms with the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions of approval. SECTION 4. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 22nd day of October, 2013. Chairman, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 9 1884