HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4 4 OFro RC
I.<ar,wr.t.A
�- Anwt 3.19n3 '
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
DATE: March 25, 2014
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 1901 — ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO.
ADR 2005-026 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6562 WITH CONSIDERATION
OF A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR TO
REMOVE CONDITION NO. 9 TO NOT LIMIT RESTAURANT USES IN
PHASE 1B (THE PROMENADE) OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA
MALL AT 400 S. BALDWIN AVENUE
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 1901 and forward a
recommendation to the City Council
SUMMARY
On January 27, 2014, the City received a request from Westfield, LLC to delete
condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Architectural Design Review No.
ADR 2005-026 (refer to Attachment No. 2) to not limit restaurant uses within the Phase
lb (The Promenade) of the Westfield Santa Anita mall.
An Initial Study was conducted for this project, and it was found that the deletion of
condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Phase lb would not result in new
significant impacts or more severe environmental impacts compared to the impacts
previously disclosed and evaluated in the 2000 Final EIR and 2007 Addendum.
Therefore, no additional environmental review is required for the City's approval. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1901 and
recommend approval to the City Council to delete condition no. 9, which eliminates the
restaurant limit in Phase 1 b (The Promenade).
BACKGROUND
In 2007, the City Council approved The Promenade expansion of the Westfield Santa
Anita mall for the addition of 97,366 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet
of restaurant space. The Promenade is at the southwest quadrant of the mall to the
south of Nordstrom and west of Macy's — see the attached site plan. According to
Westfield, The Promenade was added to provide a community and pedestrian-oriented
shopping area, and expand the overall specialty retail aspects of the shopping center.
On July 21, 2009, the City Council approved a similar request to increase the amount of
restaurant space in The Promenade from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. —so
However, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Associates sued the City and Westfield, alleging
inadequate environmental review. Subsequently, Westfield withdrew the request.
On December 6, 2011, the City Council approved an amendment to increase the
restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet to enhance the
activities at The Promenade. This includes outdoor dining space. The additional
20,000 square feet of restaurant space was in place of 20,000 square feet of existing
retail space. To date, there is approximately 23,009 square feet of restaurant uses in
The Promenade area.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting another amendment to increase restaurant use in The
Promenade. This request is to delete condition no. 9 from Resolution No. 6562 to not
limit restaurant uses within The Promenade area to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of
gross leasable area. The proposed amendment would not increase the total square-
footage approved for Westfield Santa Anita since there would be an equal reduction of
retail space. There will not be an increase in total square-footage of the center. Rather,
the intent of removing the condition is to give the Applicant the flexibility to respond to
market conditions as they arise at the shopping center.
The proposed deletion of condition no. 9 would eliminate any restaurant limitation in The
Promenade area. There is no limitation on restaurant uses anywhere else in the mall;
however, the make-up of the entire mall may only have 20% of non-retail uses (e.g.,
restaurant, cinema, health club, etc.). For the purposes of analyzing the parking
impacts, 20% is the maximum limit for non-retail uses in a regional "shopping center" as
defined by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and International Council of Shopping Centers
(ICSC). The current non-retail uses in the entire mall equal approximately 14.6% of the
total square-footage (213,078 sf/ 1,459,940 sf= 14.6%).
To determine whether, or not, the requested amendment would have any traffic and/or
parking impacts, Westfield retained the services of Gibson Transportation Consulting,
Inc. Their attached report updates the traffic and parking situation at and around the
Westfield Santa Anita mall and assesses the effects of the requested amendment.
Parking
The Westfield Santa Anita mall with The Promenade has an on-site parking supply of
6,204 spaces based on a ratio of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross
leasable area. When The Promenade was approved, it was determined that the
Westfield Santa Anita mall needed a total on-site parking supply of 5,908 spaces.
Therefore, with the parking structure that was added with The Promenade, the Westfield
Santa Anita mall has a parking surplus of 296 spaces.
The parking study (refer to Attachment No. 3) analyzed the potential increase in
restaurant space with no change to the overall square-footage of the mall. It should be
noted that the parking assessment also analyzed parking demand, which is different
Amendment to ADR 05-026 and Resolution No. 6562
400 S. Baldwin Avenue
March 25, 2014—Page 2 of 5
from the parking requirement of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The
Alow parking demand assessment analyzed how much parking would be needed at particular
times, and determined that the only times when the parking demand would exceed the
on-site supply of 6,204 parking spaces is on weekends during the holiday shopping
season. The parking study shows that the Westfield Santa Anita mall generates a
demand of 6,954 parking spaces on a Saturday in December prior to the Christmas
holiday. This demand exceeds the on-site supply by 750 spaces. The parking demand
assessment analyzed the potential increase in restaurant uses and determined that the
site is expected to generate a peak parking demand of 5,631 spaces in December on
weekdays and 7,498 spaces on a December weekend. These numbers represent an
increase over the peak parking demand generated by the current uses at the mall of 86
spaces on weekdays and 286 spaces on weekends. This parking demand increase is
due to the higher parking demand generated by the increased restaurant space. But,
even with the increase in restaurant uses, from January through November the site
would still continue to have over 1,000 available parking spaces on weekdays and
several hundred spaces available on weekends. Consistent with the mitigation
measure in the 2007 Certified Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR),
Westfield will continue to provide an off-site employee parking plan at the adjacent
Santa Anita Park racetrack property for the holiday season. Westfield's current
agreement with Santa Anita Park is to lease approximately 1,000 parking spaces this
holiday season. The assessment of the parking impacts for the requested amendment
finds that this mitigation measure is still applicable and adequate.
Traffic
The determination of the traffic analysis is that the requested additional restaurant
space would not change the trip rates or associated changes in trip generation. The
data demonstrates that the mall will continue to be a "shopping center" as defined by
the ULI and ICSC since Westfield could shift approximately 78,910 square feet of retail
uses to restaurant uses without exceeding the 20% non-retail use threshold set forth for
a "shopping center." In addition, no changes in access or modifications to roadways are
proposed. Therefore, there will be no traffic impacts and the traffic associated with the
additional restaurant uses would be consistent with what was previously analyzed in the
2007 Addendum to the EIR.
The Development Services Department agrees with the applicant that the deletion of
condition no. 9 will give them the flexibility to respond to market conditions as they arise
at the shopping center and it will enhance the activities at The Promenade and the mall
in general. Staff also agrees with the conclusion of the parking report by Gibson
Transportation Consulting, Inc. that the requested amendment will not result in any new
parking or traffic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. -
"CEQA") provides that when an EIR has been prepared for a project, no subsequent
EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis
of substantial evidence that any of the following applies (Public Resources Code §
21166; State CEQA Guidelines § 15162):
Amendment to ADR 05-026 and Resolution No. 6562
400 S. Baldwin Avenue
March 25, 2014—Page 3 of 5
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project that would require major
revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the previous EIR
due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance shows that the project would have one
or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, or that significant
effects previously examined would be substantially more severe, or that
mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects but
the City Council declined to adopt them, or mitigation measures or alternatives
that are different from those included in the previous EIR would substantially
reduce one or more significant effects on the environment but the City Council
declined to adopt them.
On October 3, 2000, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report
("Final EIR") for the 600,000 square-foot expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita
shopping center (State Clearinghouse #1999121063) (the "Project"). The Final EIR fully
analyzed all impacts of the Project. After completing construction of Phase 1 a of the
Project, Westfield, LLC submitted applications for the second phase of development. In
conjunction with that application, in 2007, the City prepared and approved an
Addendum to the Final EIR ("Addendum") to evaluate the environmental consequences
of building out Phase 1b and Phase 2 of the Project. According to the Addendum, the
implementation of Phase 1 b and Phase 2 of the Project would not result in any new
significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the
significant impacts identified in the Final EIR.
As more fully documented in the attached Initial Study, the City's approval of the
deletion of condition no. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Phase 1b would not
result in new significant impacts or more severe environmental impacts compared to the
impacts previously disclosed and evaluated in the Final EIR and Addendum. All of the
environmental impacts that would result from the proposed deletion of condition no. 9
have been previously evaluated and fully mitigated, to the extent feasible, in the Final
EIR and the Addendum. The proposed amendment would not result in any new or more
significant impacts. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required for the
City's adoption of the attached Resolution. (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; State CEQA
Guidelines §15162). All necessary CEQA findings are set forth in the attached
Resolution.
Amendment to ADR 05-026 and Resolution No. 6562
400 S. Baldwin Avenue
March 25, 2014—Page 4 of 5
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for the proposed project were mailed on March 14, 2014 to the
property owners and tenants of those properties that are located within 1,000 feet of the
subject property— see the attached radius map. The public hearing notice was published
in the Arcadia Weekly on March 13, 2014.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1901, and direct
staff to convey the Commission's recommendation and comments on the Amendment
to Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026 and Resolution No. 6562 to the City
Council for their consideration at a public hearing.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the March 25, 2014 hearing, please contact Planning
Services Manager, Lisa Flores at (626) 574-5445 or Iflores( ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved:
Jim sama
Co munity Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901
Attachment No. 2: City Council Resolution No. 6562
Attachment No. 3: Parking and Traffic Study by Gibson Transportation Consulting,
dated January 31, 2014
Attachment No. 4: Initial Study
Attachment No. 5: Radius Map
. *
Amendment to ADR 05-026 and Resolution No. 6562
400 S. Baldwin Avenue
March 25, 2014—Page 5 of 5
RESOLUTION NO. 1901
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW NO. ADR 2005-026 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6562 WITH
CONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ADDENDUM TO
THE FINAL EIR TO REMOVE CONDITION NO. 9 TO NOT LIMIT
RESTAURANT USES IN PHASE 1B (THE PROMENADE) OF THE
WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL AT 400 S. BALDWIN AVENUE.
WHEREAS, In 2005 Westfield, LLC (as successor-in-interest to Westfield
Corporation, Inc.) submitted plans for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026
for approximately 100,800 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of retail shops,
including 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and the development of additional
parking at the Westfield Santa Anita Mall (the "Mall"), more commonly known as "Phase
lb" (The Promenade); and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6562
conditionally approving ADR 2005-026 for the expansion of the Mail, more commonly
known as "Phase 1 b", subject to the conditions recommended by the Development
Services Department; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the
expansion of up to 600,000 square feet to the Westfield Santa Anita Mall, and the EIR
was certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000; and
WHEREAS, in January 2007, an EIR Addendum (the "EIR Addendum) was
prepared for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026, and the City Council
independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were
prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and approved City Council Resolution
Nos. 6561 and 6562; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6805
amending Condition No. 9 (the "Amendment") of Resolution No. 6562 (ADR 2005-026
of the Phase lb approval, to increase the approved restaurant space of 10,000 square
feet up to 30,000 square feet; the Amendment includes outdoor dining and could
reduce the retail use, but the overall 100,800 square feet of Phase 1 b previously
approved by the City Council would not change; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2014, a duly noticed public hearing concerning the
Amendment was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all
interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Based on the information in the staff report and all evidence in the
record, the City Council finds that the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR
or any other CEQA document is not required because the modification of condition no.
9 to Resolution No. 6562:
1. Does not constitute a substantial change to the Project that will require major
revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects;
2. Does not constitute a substantial change with respect to the circumstances
under which the Project is administered that will require major revisions of the
Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of the previously identified significant effects;
and
3. Does not involve new information of substantial importance that was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the
-2- 1901
time the Final EIR was certified or the Addendum was approved, that shows any
of the following: (a) the modification will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the Final EIR and the Addendum; (b) significant effects previously
examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the Final EIR and the
Addendum; (c) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be
feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the City Council declined to adopt such
measures; or (d) mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from
those analyzed in the Final EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but which the City Council declined to
adopt.
SECTION 2. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended to delete
condition no. 9:
CONDITION NO. 9
Restaurant uses within Phase lb shall be limited to a maximum of
30,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which includes
outdoor dining.
SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons the Planning Commission
recommends to the City Council deleting Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No.
6562 of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005-026 regarding the Phase 1b (The
Promenade) of Westfield Santa Anita at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue, and consideration of a
previously Certified EIR (2005) and EIR Addendum (2007), and making findings
pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 4: The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
(SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE)
-3- 1901
filk
Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2014
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Stephen P. Deitsch
City Attorney
-4- 1901
RESOLUTION NO. 6562
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW ADR 2005-026 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — SANTA ANITA
(PHASE 1 b) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE.
WHEREAS, in 2005 Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted plans for
architectural design review ("ADR 2005-026") for an approximately 100,800
square foot retail expansion and a subterranean two-story parking structure
to accommodate 783 vehicles at the Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita,
more commonly known as "Phase 1 b"; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007 the Planning Commission
reviewed ADR 2005-026 and the Planning Commission voted to
recommend to the City Council approval of the architectural design therein,
subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services
Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 . That the factual data submitted by the Development
Services Department in the staff report is true and correct.
1 6562
SECTION 2. The City Council finds:
1. That the location, configuration and architectural design and the
proposed materials and colors of the proposed expansion and parking
structure of ADR 2005-026 are visually harmonious with the existing mall
buildings and with the site;
2. That the design for the proposed expansion will enhance the
existing mall and create a positive physical image and environment;
3. That the height, massing and configuration of the expansion are
in scale with the existing mall;
4. That an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for
the expansion of up to an additional 600,000 square feet to the Westfield
Shoppingtown-Santa Anita Mall. The EIR was certified by the City Council
on September 5, 2000;
5. That an EIR Addendum was prepared for ADR 2005-026 in
January 2007 and approved under Resolution No. 6561 concurrent
herewith; and
6. That the City Council has independently reviewed and
considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were prepared pursuant to
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
(collectively referred to herein as the Project's "CEQA Documentation"), the
osok
2 6562
Administrative Record, the Staff Report (which includes recommended
findings), and the draft resolutions for final action on ADR 2005-026.
SECTIN 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council
approves the proposed architectural design review (ADR 2005-026) subject
to the conditions set forth below.
CONDITIONS,
The terms "developer", "applicant", "owner", and "Westfield" shall be
deemed to refer to the applicant for approval of ADR-026 and all
successors in interest.
1 . No building permit for any construction on the Property shall be
issued unless all of the conditions hereof have been complied with or
assurances satisfactory to the Development Services Director have been
made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled.
2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the
first retail building, the Developer shall provide (a) proof of issuance of a
Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation measure established
for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original
Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) or (b) evidence of a completion bond in an
amount and form and with a surety approved by the Development Services
Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; provided, however, that if
3 6562
within two years after issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 b, Caltrans
fails to issue a permit for the improvement, the City may direct the
Applicant to contribute the then current cost of the improvement into a City
fund for alternative transportation mitigation improvements in the City's sole
and absolute discretion, which payment shall be in addition to and not in
lieu of any and all other mitigation measures. In this event, this condition
shall be deemed satisfied upon payment of the improvement costs into the
City fund.
3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail
building, the developer shall pay to the County the cost for the construction
of the northbound right turn lane in-lieu of construction for the intersection
of Huntington Dr. at Rosemead Blvd. (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.c).
The County will incorporate the improvement into their project to widen the
intersection.
4. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail
building for Phase 1 b, the developer shall pay to the City:
a. A Transportation Impact fee based on the adopted
program for Phase 1 b; and
b. The outstanding payment, previously required but not
paid, for Phase 1 a's "fair share" of area-wide traffic improvements
4 6562
identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan on a pro-rata "fair
share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). A nexus study to determine "fair
share" responsibility for Phase la shall be prepared by a consultant
approved by the City and paid for by the project applicant.
5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the first retail
building for Phase lb, a $50,000 bond or other security as approved by the
City Attorney shall be placed in escrow with the City to be used to monitor
and address any neighborhood cut through traffic that results from the
proposed project.
6. Any use of the Property which is otherwise subject to the
Conditional Use Permit provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall
require a conditional use permit; provided, however, a conditional use
permit shall not be required for uses within Building Area C [mall area] as
shown on the Zoning/Design Overlay site plan submitted with the 2000 E1R.
7. Phase I b shall be an open-air project with open courtyards and
landscaping as indicated on Sheet 14 of the Design Review submittal dated
November 15, 2006.
8. Materials utilized in Phase 1 b for the buildings and parking
structure shall be of the materials palette included in the Sheet 15 of the
5 6562
'. Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006 and as indicated in all
elevations and sections (Sheets 9 through 13).
9. Restaurant uses within Phase lb shall be limited to a maximum
of 10,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA).
10. All signs shall be subject to the Municipal Code, except that the
following shall be applicable:
a. No new freestanding center identification signs or multi-
tenant monument signs are permitted for Phase 1 b. Single-sided
monument signs shall be only allowed for restaurants/eating
establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more and that have public
entrances from the exterior of the shopping mall. Said signs shall be
allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open-air
mall area and located within planter areas. The total square footage
of each sign shall not exceed 36 square feet.
b. Flat, Plexiglas illuminated signs and internally illuminated
plastic-faced cabinet signs are prohibited. (Resolution No. 6245)
c. Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure
shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or
more, major restaurants/eating establishments containing 5,000 sq.
ft. or more, theaters/cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall
6 6562
comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable .44
square footage. Tenant signs facing on the open-air courtyard area
and not exposed to the public right-of-way shall be excluded from this
provision.
d. All new signage shall be subject to further design review
and approval by the Development Services Director through the Sign
Design Review process.
11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the
conceptual plans included on Sheet 14 of the Design Submittal dated
November 15, 2006, shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect
and shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services
Director before any building permit is issued for any part of the project. In
addition to substantial conformance with the conceptual plan submitted as
Sheet 14, said plans shall include or be in conformance with the following,
without limitation:
a. In addition to the landscaping required in Section 11
above, three (3) percent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and
the planting beds and trees shall be distributed evenly throughout the
entire parking area adjacent to Phase 1 b from the new buildings to
the existing berms along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue.
7 6562
Landscaping shall not be concentrated in only one (1) portion of the
parking area, but dispersed throughout the parking lot. No planting
area or island shall have an average width of less than three (3) feet.
The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must
be drawn to scale and the plants shall be clearly designated and
labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall surround
all planting areas or islands. The required landscaped buffer areas
adjacent to Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue as well as the
redesigned landscaping at the southerly entrance of Baldwin Avenue
shall not be considered as part of the three (3) percent landscaping"
of the parking areas. Where a parking area abuts the buildings on the
Property, the border plantings adjacent to those buildings shall not be
considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas.
b. The solid exterior walls of the mall and in the courtyard
areas shall include decorative landscaping and treatment as shown
on the submitted elevations in the Design Submittal dated November
15, 2006 and subject to the approval of the Development Services
Director.
c. To facilitate the processing of landscaping plans, a plant
list shall be prepared giving the botanical and common names of the
8 6562
plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 1, 5 or 15 gallon
containers) and quantity of each. The plants should be listed
alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in locating the
plants on the plan.
d. All new landscape materials shall be of a size and quality
in scale with the project. All new trees shall be a minimum of 36" box.
All new shrubs shall be a minimum five (5) gallon in size.
12. The owner of the Property shall provide adequate security
personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the site.
A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia
Police Chief prior to the issuance of the first building permit for all new
buildings on the Property (including the parking structure). The owner of the
property shall at all times adhere to the approved security plan. Any
material modifications of the security plan shall require the approval of the
Police Chief, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
13. Final plans for the proposed parking structure layout shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
the first building permit for the parking structure and shall address the
issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisle widths and turning
movements into and out of the circulation ramps for standard passenger
9 6562
cars.
14. Interior lighting for the parking structure and all new exterior
lighting shall be included on the final plans for review and approval by the
Police Chief. Exterior lighting other than safety and/or security lighting shall
only be in operation until one hour after operating hours to the extent
feasible.
15. There shall be a maximum of three (3) Pavilions (Kiosks)
located in the open plaza areas of the project. The final design shall be
subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director or
his/her designee based on the following criteria:
a. Kiosks and cart designs may be animated in nature and
shall serve to accentuate the architectural and aesthetic finish of the
building facades.
b. Individual kiosks may vary in total area; however, no one
(1) kiosk shall exceed 150 square feet in area as shown on the
submitted plans.
c. Kiosks and carts shall be designed to be weatherproof
and shall have illumination integrated into the design.
d. The uses permitted with the kiosks and carts shall be
consistent with Section 2 of Paragraph 16 of Resolution No. 6199
10 6562
dated October 3, 2000.
e. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between
kiosks, and between kiosks and portable carts, of 15'-0" or as
required by the State Building Code. Kiosks and portable carts shall
be harmonious in design.
16. Any floor area within the open common area(s) devoted to
portable carts (not kiosks) shall not be subject to the City's Zoning
Ordinance for providing off-street parking spaces.
17. Westfield LLC shall continuously maintain a list of all current
operators of kiosks and portable carts throughout the mall for business
licensing purposes. This list shall promptly be furnished to the City
Development Services Department upon request.
18. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail
building, the City Engineer shall review and approve all striping, signage,
traffic control plans and on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
19. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the
first retail building, the intersection of the Gate 8 Racetrack access road
and the Westfield Mall ring road shall be reconstructed to an alignment in
substantial conformance with the alignment depicted on Sheet 3 of the
Architectural Design Review package with no reduction in the number of
11 6562
lanes exiting onto Baldwin Avenue. The final alignment shall be reviewed
and subject to approval by the City Engineer.
20. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the
first retail building, ramp access and ADA clearance shall be upgraded or
constructed at the intersections of Gate 9 & 10 (the two southernmost
entrances to the Westfield Santa Anita mall from Baldwin Avenue).
21. The following conditions shall be complied with to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director:
a. The City of Arcadia shall transfer ownership, and
Westfield shall accept ownership, of the 12-inch water main that
"ft` currently circles the existing mall to Westfield. All modifications made
to the existing water distribution main, fire hydrant assemblies, and
fire service connections shall be made according to existing City of
Arcadia Public Works Standards.
b. Water service for Westfield shall be metered at two
locations where existing pipeline enters Westfield -- at the northwest
corner of the property near the Gate 8 entrance to the racetrack and
the southwest corner of the property east of Fire Station 106. The
City's Public Works Services Department (PWSD) will provide and
install two fully equipped metering vaults and two backflow
12 6562
preventers. PWSD will provide full future maintenance of metering '" ►
vaults, Westfield shall provide future maintenance of the backflow
preventers under PWSD inspection, at the cost and expense of
Westfield.
c. The maintenance, repair and relocation of the existing
water main, and the installation of any fire hydrants required shall be
entirely undertaken by Westfield and at the expense of Westfield.
d. New fire sprinkler systems shall be installed by Westfield
as required by the Arcadia Fire Department. Backflow preventers on
the fire sprinkler systems shall be double check detector assemblies.
Backflow preventers on any proposed irrigation system shall be
installed by Westfield as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code.
e. Inspection of the water main relocation and new water
mains, water services, fire services and irrigation services shall be
done by the City's Public Works Inspector.
22. The applicant shall submit to the Development Services
Director for his/her approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit
for the first retail building an on-site vehicular access and circulation plan
that proposes, at the easterly perimeter of the subject property, direct
vehicular and pedestrian connections between the Westfield Santa Anita
13 6562
Mall and the Santa Anita Racetrack property. The location of the pedestrian
access shall be as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the Design Review
Submittal dated November 15, 2006. The vehicular connection shall be
located along the easterly perimeter of the Westfield property in the general
location of the existing aisle way that runs perpendicular to the southerly
portion of the ring road (existing three-legged intersection controlled by a
stop sign). The final location for the vehicular connection shall be
determined by the Development Services Director. The applicant shall
complete all improvements in accordance with City approved plans.
23. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail
project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the applicant shall
execute a reciprocal access agreement with the adjacent property owner to
the east for a common vehicular connection and a common pedestrian
connection at locations approved by the Development Services Director.
24. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail
project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the developer shall
submit a bond in a form and amount and issued by a surety approved by
the City Attorney for the roadway, sidewalk and other improvements on the
Westfield property necessary to construct the vehicular and pedestrian
connections between the two adjacent properties.
14 6562
25. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail
building, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of
the Fire Chief:
a. Access to and around structures during construction shall
be maintained. A plan shall be submitted outlining all emergency
access routes during and after construction. In addition, a detailed
excavation plan shall be submitted and subject to approval of, but not
limited to, emergency access and water supply.
b. An emergency egress plan shall be submitted for affected
portions of the existing Mall during and after construction.
26. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the
first retail building, the following conditions shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief:
a. The basement parking level shall be provided with a
smoke removal system for underground firefighting operations.
b. The parking structure entrance height shall be designed
for access by paramedic ambulances, as determined and approved
by the Fire Chief.
c. All new retail space and the parking structure shall be
interconnected to the existing fire alarm panel.
15 6562
d. All existing fire hydrants and fire department connections
in the expansion area shall be relocated to locations approved by the
Fire Chief. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided as required by
the Fire Chief.
e. On-site Class I standpipes shall be required at approved
locations as required by the Fire Chief.
f. The dumpster location within the parking structure shall
have an adequate clear perimeter space for firefighting operations
and dumpster removal. In addition, the dumpster location shall have
adequate ventilation for firefighting operations.
g. All elevators, including service elevators, shall be
provided with the length, width and weight capacities.
h. An acceptable method of radio communication within both
the existing Mall and expansion areas shall be provided and
approved by the Fire and Police Chiefs.
i. Pre-Fire Plans, in a format approved by the Fire Chief,
shall be prepared for the entire Mall, including without limitation the
new expansion, outlining the hydrant locations, fire department
connections, standpipes, fire alarm panels, smoke evacuation fans,
and other points of interest as required.
16 6562
j. Prefixed ladders shall be placed at locations approved by
the Fire Chief on the parapet walls that lead down to the roof. These
ladders shall be capable of supporting a 500-pound live load. An
agreed upon exterior marking on the structure shall be provided on
the exterior of the building and visible, designating these interior
parapet ladder locations.
k. The drop-off-area access at the front of the expansion
shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide a minimum weight
capacity of 70,000 pounds apparatus access.
I. Knox boxes shall be provided for access to any restricted
areas, including exterior entrances and individual units.
m. Westfield's existing public address system shall be
connected to the expansion areas.
n. Standby power must be supplied for emergency lighting
and the public address system.
27. A Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager shall act as a
liaison between the Police Department, Fire Department, Development
Services Department, Public Works Services Department, and all tenant
contractors throughout the duration of the construction project. A location
will be established for all City inspectors and other contractors to
17 6562
oew coordinate inspections and meet with the Tenant Coordinator and Project
Manager. The location shall be provided on plans submitted for building
permit.
28. No amplified live entertainment shall be permitted in the
outdoor areas of the Mall.
29. The project and the site shall be developed in compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title 24) including direct connectivity
with the adjacent right-of-ways, i.e., Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive.
30. The developer shall defend (with legal counsel acceptable to
the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and
r' employees from any and all claims, actions, and/or proceedings against the
City and/or its agents, officials, officers, and/or employees to attack, set
aside, void or annul (i) this ADR approval, or (ii) the certification of the EIR
Addendum in conjunction with this ADR approval, or (iii) any decision,
action or failure to act by the City with respect to this ADR application.
31 . The City must promptly notify the developer of any claim,
action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate reasonably in the
defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of any claim,
action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate reasonably in the
defense, the developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend,
18 6562
indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
32. The developer shall reimburse the City for any court and
attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any
claim or action brought against the City because of this approval and/or
CEQA related action, Although the developer is the real party in interest in
an action, the City may, at is sole discretion, participate in the defense of
the action, but such participation shall not relieve the developer of any
obligation under this condition.
33. The applicant shall provide staffing to monitor the pick-up and
drop-off area on the west side of the Mall for the first 30 days following the
opening of Phase 1 b or through January 15 if the first thirty days falls within
the month of December. At the conclusion of the staffing period, the
applicant shall have an additional ninety (90) days to make any
modifications to the operation of the pick-up and drop-off area as they
deem necessary to ensure there are no queuing or traffic conflicts. At the
conclusion of this ninety (90)-day period, the Development Services
Director shall review the proposed operations plan for the pick-up and drop-
off area as recommended by the applicant. The applicant shall incorporate
and continuously implement any and all modifications to the operations
plan as deemed necessary by the Development Services Director.
19 6562
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
Passed, approved and adopted this 1ST day of May.
Mayor of the C' y of media
ATTEST:
ity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM •
el.** g'(.AM.. P
Stephen Deitsch
City Attorney
r
20 6562
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby
certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6562 was passed and adopted
by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested
to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day
of May, 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Councilmember Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Wuo and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ity Clerk of the City cadia
21 6562
Fi
son
■■■■(r��■{■�,
4M' !i
transportation consulting,inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jason Kruckeberg and Lisa Flores, City of Arcadia
CC: Elan Feldman, Westfield LLC
FROM: Patrick A. Gibson, P.E., PTOE
Richard Gibson, LEED Green Associate
DATE: November 26, 2013
Revised January 31, 2014
RE: Parking Implications of Land Use Changes to
Westfield Santa Anita
Arcadia, California Ref: J1008
INTRODUCTION
Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc. (GTC) was asked to conduct an assessment of the
impact on parking as a result of a potential deletion of a condition limiting restaurant use (the
Condition) in the Promenade area of the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center located in
Arcadia, California. This proposed change would not increase the total square footage
approved for Westfield Santa Anita but would give the owner the flexibility to adjust the
make-up of the existing center to include up to a maximum of 20% non-retail use (e.g.,
restaurant, cinema, health club, etc.), consistent with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) definition of a regional shopping center
(Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd Edition, 1999) and consistent with market
demand.
It is not the intent of Westfield LLC (the Applicant)to increase the maximum amount of non-
retail uses in the immediate future, but rather to have the flexibility to adjust to market
conditions over time.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The current center contains 1,459,940 square feet (sf) of gross leasable area (GLA)1. The
Promenade area is currently permitted up to 30,000 sf of restaurant development and the
Applicant has received a number of expressions of interest in increased restaurant uses
beyond the current limit. The current land uses within Westfield Santa Anita include:
• 1,246,862 sf GLA shopping center retail
• 104,319 sf GLA restaurant
sf GLA per the ULI/ICSC definition of leaseable area
523 W. 6th Street, Suite 1234 Los Angeles,CA 90014 p.213.683.0088 f.213.683.0033
Mr.Jason Kruckeberg
Ms. Lisa Flores
411IN
January 31,2014
Page 2
• 34,821 sf GLA health club
• 3,014 seat Cineplex(73,938 sf GLA)
The above numbers include a 4,148 sf GLA restaurant that is completing construction and ready
to open.
Thus, the current land uses within Westfield Santa Anita are made up of 14.6% non-retail uses
(213,078 sf/ 1,459,940 sf= 14.6%).
PROPOSED MODIFICATION
The proposed deletion of the Condition would eliminate any restaurant limitation in the
Promenade area; there is no limitation on restaurant use anywhere else in Westfield Santa
Anita. For the purpose of this study, a hypothetical land use breakdown was analyzed that
would include a shift of up to 78,910 sf GLA of existing retail space to restaurant space within
the entire center. This amount of additional restaurant use was selected as a hypothetical case
taking into account the industry standard limitation of non-retail uses in a regional shopping
center. With the hypothetical test case, Westfield Santa Anita would include the same total
square footage of 1,459,940 sf GLA divided into the following land uses:
• 1,167,952 sf GLA Super Regional Shopping Center Retail
• 183,229 sf GLA Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant '4°)
• 34,821 sf GLA Health Club
• 3,014 seat Cineplex(73,938 sf GLA)
The following paragraphs analyze the impacts of the proposed change.
PARKING IMPACTS
There are two industry standard methods for estimating the peak parking demand at a regional
shopping center, both based on ULI/ICSC procedures and data. The first method uses the
ULI/ICSC national standard parking rate as adjusted by the amount of non-retail space within
the center, and the second method treats the center as a mixed-use development and
calculates the parking demands of the individual land uses within the development using the
ULI/ICSC shared parking model. The analysis results using both methodologies are described
below.
1. ULI/ICSC PARKING RATIOS
ULI/ICSC's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2"d Edition provides guidelines for
calculating parking requirements for regional shopping centers. When the percentage of non-
retail uses is between 10% and 20% of total GLA (Westfield Santa Anita would have a total
percentage of non-retail use of up to 20% in the hypothetical test case), ULI/ICSC recommends
a sliding scale for calculating parking ratios. Essentially, this methodology increases the parking
demand rate by 0.03 spaces per 1,000 sf of GLA for each percentage point of non-retail space
Mr.Jason Kruckeberg and Ms. Lisa Flores
January 31, 2014
Page 3
between 10% and 20%. When a center exceeds 20% non-retail use, it is no longer a regional
shopping center, but rather a mixed-use development.
As described above, Westfield Santa Anita today includes non-retail land uses that make up
14.6% of its floor space. The potential center-wide restaurant space increase would change that
percentage to 20%.
Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd Edition recommends the following parking
ratios for shopping centers above 600,000 sf GLA:
Adjustment for
Condition Parking Ratio 20% Non-Retail Total Ratio
Weekday 4.0 sp/ 1000 sf GLA +0.3 4.3 sp/1000 sf GLA
Weekend 4.5 sp/ 1000 sf GLA +0.3 4.8 sp/1000 sf GLA
The actual parking supply at Westfield Santa Anita on a December weekday and a December
weekend (with the off-site parking program in place) is as follows:
Condition Parking Ratio Total Ratio
Weekday 6,204 sp/ 1,459,940 sf = 4.3 sp/1000 sf GLA
Weekend 6,954 sp/ 1,459,940 sf = 4.8 sp/1000 sf GLA
Thus, Westfield Santa Anita meets the national parking supply standard for both the weekday
and the weekend conditions in December.
2. SHARED PARKING
The parking analysis conducted for the expansion of Westfield Santa Anita used the shared
parking model in ULI/ICSC's Shared Parking, 2"d Edition (2005) to analyze the parking demand
patterns at the center. Because the 2007 shared parking analysis was based on parking
accumulation data prepared prior to the completion of the Promenade, the model was
recalibrated in 2013 to reflect the actual parking patterns at Westfield Santa Anita today. New
parking accumulation counts were conducted in October 2013 on a weekday and a Saturday.
The Westfield Santa Anita shared parking model was recalibrated to replicate the peak parking
demand of 2,416 spaces during a mid-day peak hour of a weekday in October and the existing
peak parking demand of 5,028 spaces during a mid-day peak hour of a Saturday in the month of
October.
In order to calibrate the shared parking model, the national average base parking demand rates
and hourly and monthly distribution patterns provided by ULI/ICSC were adjusted to reflect the
actual conditions found during the Westfield Santa Anita parking occupancy surveys.
Individual land use parking assumptions were also made, consistent with ULI/ICSC guidelines,
to calibrate the model. A portion of the restaurant customers and movie patrons were assumed
to make an additional stop at one of the other land uses in the mall before or after the restaurant
or movie activity. In other words, these trips were "internally captured" within the mall. In the
Mr.Jason Kruckeberg and Ms. Lisa Flores
January 31, 2014 ."'"„;
Page 4
case of the Westfield Santa Anita model calibration, the estimates of internal capture were
conservative at 25% internal capture for both uses on a weekday and 33% on a Saturday.
Previous research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers shows that up to 50% internal
capture of restaurant and movie trips within a regional shopping center is common.
Existing and Fully Occupied Parking Conditions
There is currently a total of 6,204 parking spaces to support the shopping center. This
represents a parking surplus of 460 spaces when compared to the 5,744 spaces required by the
City of Arcadia Municipal Code. This would remain the same with the hypothetical test case.
The ULI/ICSC shared parking model calibrated for steady state conditions was used to estimate
the peak parking demand for existing fully occupied conditions at Westfield Santa Anita.
The calibrated model calculated that the fully occupied shopping center with the current
configuration of land uses would generate a demand for 5,545 spaces on a December weekday
at approximately 2:00 PM, when retail activity and restaurant lunch demand are at their peaks.
The December Saturday demand reaches its peak of 7,212 spaces at approximately 3:00 PM
when retail demand peaks. Exhibits 1A — 1B summarize the peak month parking demand for
the existing fully occupied land uses within the center. Exhibits 1C — 1E show the graphical
representation of the monthly and hourly parking demand patterns.
Analysis of monthly parking demand over the course of a year suggests that the existing parking
supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the peak parking demand for every month of the year
except December weekends, as shown in Exhibits 1C and 1D. Exhibits 1C and 1D also show
that, from January through November, there would be more than sufficient parking supply to
meet the demand. In fact, during most days of the year, there will be more than 1,000 empty
spaces in the Westfield Santa Anita parking supply.
Therefore, the existing parking supply of 6,204 spaces is sufficient to meet the demands of
Westfield Santa Anita on all but December weekends. These eight peak days of the year would
require the off-site employee parking program, as currently utilized by Westfield Santa Anita and
set forth in the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR, be continued in order to meet the total
parking demand during the holiday season.
Parking Demand for the Potential Increase in Restaurant Uses
This report analyzes the potential increase in Westfield Santa Anita's restaurant space to up to
183,229 sf GLA with no change to the overall square footage of the center. This would result in
a reduction of the retail space within Westfield Santa Anita to 1,167,952 sf GLA. As shown in
Exhibits 2A and 2B, the demand analysis indicates that the site is expected to generate a peak
parking demand of 5,631 spaces on a December weekday at 2:00 PM when the combined retail
and restaurant lunch demand peaks. The parking demand on a December weekend peaks at
7,498 spaces at 6:00 PM when restaurant dinner demand peaks. Due to the amount of
restaurant included in this scenario,the weekend peak demand hour shifts from 3:00 PM to 6:00
PM because of the increased activity associated with the restaurant dinner demand. These
numbers represent an increase of 86 and 286 spaces, respectively, over the peak parking
Mr. Jason Kruckeberg and Ms. Lisa Flores
January 31, 2014
Page 5
demand generated by the current land use configuration. This parking demand increase is due
to the higher parking demand generation by the increased restaurant space. Again, this is the
parking demand expected during the busiest hours of the year on a December weekday and
weekend.
As shown in Exhibits 2C and 2D, analysis of parking demand over the course of a year
suggests that the parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would satisfy the parking demand with
the increased restaurant use during every month except December weekends. Exhibit 2E
shows the graphical representation of the hourly parking demand patterns on December
weekdays and weekends.
With the increased restaurant use, from January through November, the site would continue to
have over 1,000 empty spaces on all weekdays of the year and hundreds of empty parking
spaces on all weekend days. For example, Exhibit 3 shows the hourly parking demand during
the month of June, an average shopping month. On a June weekday, the peak parking demand
never reaches 3,000 spaces, which means that even with the additional restaurant space in
place, Westfield Santa Anita would still only be approximately one-half full during the busiest
hour of a June weekday.
Consistent with the approved 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR, Westfield Santa Anita will
continue an off-site employee parking program for weekends throughout December. The
number of off-site employee parking spaces would increase by approximately 285 spaces due
to the increased restaurant space in the hypothetical test case. As stated in the 2007 Certified
Addendum to the EIR, Westfield Santa Anita will provide the details of the holiday parking
program to the City of Arcadia during the fall of each year to demonstrate the availability of the
off-site spaces on an annual basis.
Again, it is not the intent of the Applicant to increase the restaurant square footage within
Westfield Santa Anita to its maximum amount in the near future. Rather, the intent of removing
the Condition is to give the Applicant the flexibility to respond to market conditions as they arise
at the entire shopping center. Exhibit 4 shows the peak December parking demand for Westfield
Santa Anita with varying levels of restaurant space.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant is seeking to delete a Condition applicable to the Promenade and increase the
amount of allowable restaurant space. An equal amount of retail space in Westfield Santa Anita
as a whole would be reduced so that there is no net increase in total square footage for the
center.
The current parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would satisfy City of Arcadia Municipal
Code parking requirements at all times and satisfy the national parking supply standards
recommended by ULI/ICSC. The parking demand would be accommodated at all times of the
year except December weekends, during which time the Applicant would continue its existing
off-site employee parking program, as described in the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR.
The change of restaurant space allocation would increase off-site parking demand by a
maximum of 286 parking spaces during the busiest hour of the year(i.e., December weekends).
Mr. Jason Kruckeberg and Ms. Lisa Flores
January 31, 2014
Page 6
Even with this increased parking demand, however, the existing 6,204-space supply would still
have over 1,000 empty parking spaces on most days of the year.
Therefore, the existing parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the parking demand
without the Condition, and the conclusions of the 2007 Certified Addendum to the EIR are still
valid. Westfield Santa Anita would continue to confirm with the City of Arcadia its off-site holiday
parking program each year.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding these findings.
iow-
Cl,(�„„# .'t h 5N
yk W N F 'Nmgtr, y, {V
W a. O^ A
1I
It=c 88 ;0= 08°8 _
w
6
t '
C p
6 & Yi
W
i i Q g 8
8
l — 000
S y
+ `el88 A1 c8P `
w
N N •4OO O O Y
, tilt ',
X500 gg
i p i= kI if Pk
1 1E11E47.
6 couio
W i
g iii1W4 eggs
y4 i`80: 8888
ill 66 CCC to ". OdviO
; Igyg off° gg�q
ss ygg �,,
W S '`Ii,:S�� 1E
i i fiR$.,T lase i
late fr.41
$s8. -� 88.88
Ii
O
iLl '48V
�
8�
u # I -
I I d o i s
I s, it
is
i 1
1 i [I! 11
40111k^ k
II
Ii)
o
d s U si
1 iiIiFFi � � ii
01016iiiiiii
gilltill IiiiiiiiiiiA}II
lin i ii
IiiiiiiiiK'I ii
lifiliiii[i! �I 0110 0111 0
1iIIIILL.I 9iiiiIiLI 0
iiiiiiiili�� iil` IIILI 0 Blll�
WHullil IIIILI
li §*liPi t
iiiiiiil i ni
Iiiionit
jjjjjjj Iiihiiiii, i i
i iiiiiiiii i ii ''Irimii i
MOIR' 'J 8i S iiiiiiiiii Ili ii:.����f- +ill a �ib ���� Q ;� 0i! iIIL1 I
$ C f BIIIIIII " 0 ` VIII
19 0 _IIIH1�; 8� iIdd1:I
G
iiiHI ii!"1111111
iIIiIk1L1
MAl�l � n
i &IIiii r
iiiiiii IIII Ili l IIdk11
iIIi :i1�a i
B0O ll0l 01 800 . Iliil ti I
910 Ili l Il 1:1111Iiii 1 g i
MPIPI:::'1 11 '
IQ:ri::::h 1 2
I lihio
r i
I :. E 1 ,
ra
„ Jill`WSW 1/' W Dii
_I8y
CO
J
/ ---
LLI
uD I F-
4.
0
mWO `-- 2
>i i i r O °'
2 c
0
ca
0 cu
W CO 2
1.1 et
o
co 41
per
y J/1! /l �f!/!1/A lL m e
0) a
c o
as
co
•sw
as
ry
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 »' -
0 0 0
O co CO t� M N o
slle3S 6uled
fAin
fl/ l r/1� /� / If1/ f/'1f/f/ IlN
f co
f y
1��
40 0
CD
z
p F.
v
mWe- --
W z Q % r /'''./.�/ %/.
O
il7 -----
UJ ILI ----- K
N / fffff�/rru.�./ v tg
i5 8
a w
z v
N Y
o o o 0 0 0 o o 0
O O
O O O O O O
00 h co Lo d co N
SIMS 6UDIJed
>, V
c>
r rJ}r}rrrr}rf �y ami�� °'9/
nil 40 ‘1/
Ce
is A il,
cr
M I iiiii A—_—_ e cY
I iii.Z %!1/!/J/!Jf!///!}!/fJJ//!/f//!J/ 4 cy,9
>. .. ,,,
CI d I f/f!r/lri rf r.F Ile
< a S. \\\\\\\\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\
W 8 111111 /. DLO,
4
CI o ■\..\�a...\\.\\.\.\..\.\\.\..\\\.....t...\\\\.\�.
, - W Z ,42 !ii/i/riifJri/}irlrJlfr/ice lv o m 4 0o° Illt■-_--- o-0 I 12.
IJJ
J V4 S\\\4 \.\\\\\\\\\\.\\\\\.�\.\\\\\\.\\\\\\.\\\\.�
R
CI = 1116 �; 4
i! /s, 1
a ���� b
H S. I'>
N //1/l1Jr/ f/ -y6,
n N
v \.....\..�.�1.....\...� O`
N J///rr/I//.A 4.
CO o F.
61 CI 1\�1,\\\� o a
a
a. Ns 0
Zi 4 gt
19 5, Y
0 oo oo 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
# o N. co o 0 0 0 O-
SIIe;S 6Upped
111§10':+1Er4.4°' § 1 0.6'414
"07401688a
pp
6 , 7.
4 P
Y.ir;ssA,- Isss
!<m;od >o_o
iri V4 , ,
W
..
1 4R W y
S1,
1
1 i;ialss ; oe88
i gss �,,ss8s
if t b
0 i t. o ui o
W }
, g 11
2 1 figc i .loge
o ddaod
S
1 , 1 388` ° ^888
0 44
iT8st8888 j
1 i iO^ 4 0 0
I
W
y ; 1
i d S; ; S 5 1
i s
t
h 1 n i
IT
s
I „ ,,,,, , .
. , .....
iiIiIi1,i IiuliLi' i9
Iliiiiiiiiiii litiiiii ii
Iiiiilliti II .
ip,itliti ii
,,,
iiiiiillii i ii i]liiiioulail n nn
iiii I n
wm raiY 0 i BA ;ii113 0
iiiiiiiiiti I iiiiiiii O i
iiiiiiiit i i iiiii!iiii i i
IwiIiI11 9O EAY 0 i
iiiiit i iiidiii: i I
j iiiiiiiiii 9� I 9r� if i I
1 iiir111111: 1 9eiii�ii 9 i
� J alli
iIiI1 � IIiII I {I 9 r
p a � a
I G69 �111111
9 iiioilitti 9�'aii�l i
I EIIIIli3 iiiiiiiiVi i
iiiiiiiiiiii Milli'
giiiMAii "i
fr
B iiiikiliiii i
Iiiilibi i
[ iiiIi1A V i
i
ikiAif i 0l 9ñlluIi
I: :g-'1611:::ii.LR' 1 41
::" ::: C li
1":11 -1
hi
U
J/!t
l/ lJff f�� �� fr�/ ! !/! 0
Q p
• C
Er 1.5
2 '
N p 0
mW 0
X I— t
W • 4)
In 0 po'r co
H m
Z• H
co
cn
co
p O
0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0 "
o co �f) M N ,
sIIM;S 6u!MJed
r" U
co
o
G 0
z N
0 O
CO Ili 0
9 !!
I ----
ca
om r tn
/'iI 'r////rir/'///'f/fi/,/'/i.�..�,r///.�.�..I' Q
ILI f•
W Q- W ----
o
to
I /.//,//f//.�//fire./'/ /r//.�.//./r//� u_
o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4',.:. co 1- (co lLo M N O,
SIMS Gulped
P
cu c
.0 0 MI 12,„
et
0 0 \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\`
Ili A i'L
Wiz
Mi.!!! !!� �Lo,01
ff. / #1/tve
In Elin A 120,6)
\\\\\\N \\\\\\\\\\\.r\\\\�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1
0 c 1-%f//_/r_fr !/ '(yy
III rim i t
CO c t9
O 0 \\\\\\\\\\\\'.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Z 'rr 11 ffl fff!!/ffflr!!f!!f!/flrfffi#W 4
W 1r li...��.��• S
\\\\\..N.
\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.
! /
f
a Z
I.7. 4 E \\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N
_ E rrf/rrrrir lriirirfifrfifrl�rflrirfirir.± tv o'
W � = \\\\\\\1.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
3 rf//ff/!!f//f///!fr!//f/!!/! A /Lo,
.J R 0 co .\\\\\■.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\.
Z m ISM_ 0'1
O 1- \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
2 To /!/ff/ffr/r!!f!///!rf//!r/l!/1f//ff/ 4
a = r 446,
0 _-_- tt
= H /ff!/f!//r!/!!//!!fr/ 4
H O
o J//lrfff///f/ -Lb
(NO 61
`
O. f%//A, /L6,
a 0
co \\\\
Iii) %I �L6,
a % '7,j-6.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..
CO is- (o to v M f■
slle;S Burned
3 3 \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ c>0 D
Et i 1,
<<
aiii A ilEy
0
6mm!! LJi0'
0
i�"/////// /// 4
d
°a N\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
//!/!/II/ /! 1yVs)
m .\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N
g re
4
H 0 !!!!!!!!! /I rya 0 co I
CO 0 c \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�
X Y S %!!/!//!f//!!/!II/!!!/ DLO,
c'
JV i/I/////I!/ /! �?'at
m a
Ill 1-
, 0 b
47. I
0
ct 6
D.
D.
N
c % b
U
SO -Pi,.
o o 0 0° ° °o °o °
co to 'tt M N 00
SIIe;S Bu!MJed
OO U) U) Cr) •ct
~ W p p N N
FA
Z
Z LL CC L1-1
2 0 a z
W
Q CO
C u N O)
(9 0 N N M d:
Z cc N- N- ti ti ti
Y D
< Q
d N
W W ('
2 Y a uj
0 0 0 0 0
W U. C4 W
✓ o 0 a z
a Q Q
CEO N N M
N d Y 1.0 1.0 co cc 115 6 Id 16
z W
ga LLJ
U) J a) rn rn aa) rn
Osi On (A
IZ W Q
~
0 0
0
v ._ v v
G a O
W F 0
(I)
Z
Z r = N ONO ONO 00
mZ < F- CO 00 00
(I) g J J M M M .
= = o d d M
0O y N a rn 03 00 c0 c0 0
rn rn rn rn
z w z
O f- 0
✓ Z
0 U N rn o 0 o rn
Z 2 Q M O O O N
rt Z d O N CO
a. a a a)
Y = W
a N � � � N a)ca
J
cc• 00 00 N
N N N (•O^ CA
UJ
,- r r r O
cc a)
a)
a)
J CO
zi B-
I- y
W v)
z cc --
O z z0
0 z z 0
z 0 X u.
O X Q
O w 2
City of Arcadia
Initial Study
Removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 of ADR No. 2005-026
and Resolution Numbers 6562 and 6805
Regarding Phase lb (Promenade) of Westfield Santa Anita
a yflg,';
( Vi Y OF
IA
February 2014
Prepared by:
Matrix Environmental, LLC
On Behalf of:
City of Arcadia
Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager
**- 240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
CITY OF ARCADIA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project title:
Removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 of ADR approval (ADR No. 2005-026 and
Resolution Numbers 6562 and 6805) regarding Phase lb (Promenade) of Westfield
Santa Anita.
2. Lead agency name and address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
3. Contact person and phone number:
Lisa Flores, (626) 574-5445
4. Project location:
400 South Baldwin Avenue. Arcadia CA 91007
5. Project sponsor's name and address:
Westfield Property Management LLC on behalf of Property Owners, Santa Anita
Shoppingtown LP
2049 Century Park East, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
6. General plan designation: Regional Commercial
7. Zoning: C-2- D, C-2D & H8
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 sheets if necessary.)
In order to accommodate current market conditions and to fully activate the Promenade
area, Westfield proposes to remove Condition of Approval No. 9, which limits the
amount of restaurant gross leasable area (GLA) within the Promenade (Phase 1 b).
Upon removal of this condition, Westfield would be required to comply with the
20-percent non-retail use restriction for the entire center, which is consistent with
industry standards such as the Urban Land Institute (ULI). This condition removal
would provide the flexibility to increase the amount of permitted restaurant space within
the Promenade. There would not be any increase in the total square footage allowed
within the Promenade area (Phase 1 b) or the center. Furthermore, the space to be
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 1
Environmental Checklist Form
utilized for the additional restaurant uses is already built within the Promenade. No
additional construction or other modifications would occur beyond typical tenant
improvements in and around the existing buildings.
9. Surrounding land uses and settings: Briefly describe the project's surroundings:
Lands near the property are generally developed with urban uses. North of the
property is the Santa Anita Park horse racing track, with stables immediately adioininq
the property, and the grandstand and race track further to the north. East of the
shopping center is the Santa Anita Park southern parking area. Northwest of the
property on the west side of Baldwin Avenue is the Los Angeles County Arboretum.
West of the property along the west side of Baldwin Avenue are multi-family residential
dwellings. The City of Arcadia Fire Station No. 106, located at the northeast corner of
Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, is located to the southwest of the shopping
center. South of the property along Huntington Drive are multi-family residential
buildings with commercial buildings located at the intersection of Huntington Drive and
Baldwin Avenue.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement).
None.
0
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 2
Environmental Checklist Form
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.
❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality
Resources
❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils
❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water
Emissions Materials Quality
❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise
❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation
❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 3
Environmental Checklist Form
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
s y)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment. In addition, the environmental impacts have been accounted for in an earlier
environmental document and no further documentation is required.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect
1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
2 - t$ - 141
Signature Date
Lielx
Printed Name For
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 4
Environmental Checklist Form
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 may be 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 "Earlier Analyses," as described in
(5) below 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 1 5063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the
following:
a) Earlier Analysis 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
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 5
Environmental Checklist Form
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.
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 6
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
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?
No Impact a—d. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 of Phase 1 b would not
affect the aesthetics of the Promenade area or the center. Any additional restaurant uses
would be implemented entirely within existing buildings within the shopping center. With
the exception of the grandstands at the Santa Anita Racetrack and the Los Angeles
Arboretum, no locally recognized scenic resources are located within the vicinity of the
shopping center or within the shopping center itself. The San Gabriel Mountains to the
distant north are the most prominent scenic resource that can be viewed from the
Promenade. Additionally, no designated scenic highways are located adjacent to or within
view of the shopping center. As the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not
result in the development of new structures that would modify the existing elevations of the
Promenade, long-range views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north would not change.
Additionally, views of the Santa Anita Racetrack Grandstands or the Los Angeles
Arboretum would not be affected. Thus, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would
result in no impact to scenic resources and views.
The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not materially change the overall
massing and height of proposed buildings, or the landscape concept implemented for
Phase 1 b. Architectural materials would be similar to that previously evaluated for Phase
1 b with the use of material such as stucco, stone natural wood, painted storefront metals,
and other materials that are not highly reflective. Proposed lighting would continue to
comply with the design guidelines established as part of Resolution 6199 that specify that
light standards may not be more than 20 feet in height and that lighting shall be hooded
and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights of way. Such
lighting would not exceed the City threshold of 0.1 foot-candle onto residential uses. Thus,
the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not substantially change the aesthetic
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 7
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
character, views or light and glare impacts relative to existing conditions and no impacts
would occur.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY 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:
40".. a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ❑ ❑
Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑
Williamson Act Contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, ❑ ❑ ❑
forest land(as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)),timberland(as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production(as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest ❑ ❑ ❑
land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑
which,due to their location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact a—e. Westfield Santa Anita is entirely developed with retail and
restaurant uses and associated landscaping. Additionally, the Westfield Santa Anita
property is currently zoned as C-2-D, and C-2D and H8, and is designated for Regional
.- Commercial uses. As such, no agricultural or forest uses are located on or near the
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 8
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant -
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
shopping center. Thus, the proposed condition removal would not convert prime farmland,
unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or forest land; result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land;
or involve other changes that could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural
use. Therefore, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would result in no impacts to
agricultural resources.
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 ❑ El ® ❑
any criteria pollutant for which the project region is Aimobk
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard(including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑
number of people?
Less than Significant Impact a—e. New construction associated with additional
restaurant uses would generally not extend beyond typical tenant improvements in and
around existing building footprints. Thus, any construction emissions would be extremely
limited and the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not change the conservative
construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction
activities set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Construction impacts would be less than
significant and well within the impact envelope set forth in the 2007 Addendum.
With regard to operational emissions, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9
would not result in a change in regional air pollutant emissions relative to existing
conditions or those previously disclosed in the 2007 Addendum. Mobile source emissions
are directly dependent on the number of vehicular trips generated by a specified use,
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 9
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
based on trip rates established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The trip
rate that applies to Westfield Santa Anita is a "shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa
Anita has and will continue to meet the definition of a "shopping center," as set forth by ITE,
either with or without the proposed modification. This rate accounts for retail and
restaurant uses. As the shopping center rate would continue to be applied with the
proposed modification, the trip generation and the associated mobile source emissions
would not change. Similarly, area source emissions associated with the usage of natural
gas would not change as a result of the proposed increase in restaurant space and
corresponding reduction in retail space, since the natural gas usage rates for shopping
centers and restaurant uses set forth in the air quality model are identical. In addition,
potential pollutant emissions from the use of a charbroiler would only represent a fraction of
the SCAQMD regional daily operational emission significance thresholds. Therefore, the
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would involve a negligible or no expansion of
pollutant emissions in comparison to existing uses and would not change any of the
significance conclusions set forth in the 2007 Addendum.
With regard to potential odor impacts, shopping centers, including restaurant uses,
are not identified by SCAQMD as uses that are associated with objectionable odors with
the potential to affect a substantial number of people. In the event that the restaurant uses
include a charbroiler, the charbroiler would be operated in accordance with SCAQMD
Rule 1138 (Restaurant Operations). Compliance with this regulation would ensure that
potential odor impacts would be less than significant as set forth in the 2007 Addendum.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies,or regulations by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service?
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,
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 10
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
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?
No Impact a—f. As described in the 2007 Addendum, no unique or sensitive
species are located on the Westfield Santa Anita property, including the Promenade, and
therefore such species would not be affected by implementation of the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9. In addition, as the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9
would not require the construction of new buildings, existing on-site vegetation consisting of
ornamental trees and landscaping plants would not be removed. Thus, the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9 would result in no impacts to biological resources.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES:Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in significance of ❑ ❑ ❑
a historical resource as defined in§15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ❑ ❑ ❑
of an archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑
outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact a—d. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not require
additional construction beyond typical tenant improvements in and around the existing
buildings and would not require grading or excavation in areas not previously disturbed.
Thus, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in a potential to discover
cultural resources. As such, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would result in no
impacts to cultural resources.
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita -
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 11
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ ❑
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑
liquefaction?
iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑
,, c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ❑ ❑ ❑
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potential result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading,subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code(1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
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 a.i, a.iii, a.iv, and b—e; Less than Significant Impact a.ii. As
discussed in the Certified EIR and the 2007 Addendum, the nearest Earthquake Fault Zone
(EFZ) is the Raymond EFZ, located immediately north of the shopping center. The
Raymond Fault extends for approximately 12 miles from Monrovia to Los Angeles. Since
the shopping center is located outside the boundary of the Raymond EFZ, the potential for
ground surface rupture is considered remote. Thus, no impacts associated with fault
rupture are expected.
As with other development within the seismically active southern California region,
the existing buildings within the shopping center would be subject to strong seismic
groundshaking during a seismic event. However, as the additional restaurant uses would
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 12
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
be implemented entirely within existing structures, which were required to comply with the
City and Uniform Building Code requirements, as well as the recommendations set forth in
a specific geotechnical report, potential impacts associated with strong seismic
groundshaking would be less than significant and within the envelope of impact set forth in
the 2007 Addendum.
As the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not require construction of new
buildings, soil exposure and the potential for soil erosion would not occur. In addition, the
site is underlain by thick alluvium with the specific soil type as the Hanford Association
soils. These soils have a low shrink-swell behavior and are not considered expansive soils.
Moreover, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in the use or
installation of septic tanks. Therefore, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would
not result in impacts associated with soil erosion, expansive soils or soils incapable of
supporting septic tanks.
In addition, the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center, is not located within a state-
designated Liquefaction Hazard Zone of Required Investigation. Therefore, liquefaction
potential at the site is considered low. The site is also not mapped within a state-
designated Landslides Hazard Zone of Required Investigation. Similarly, because the
shopping center is already developed, and on-site soils are already compacted and
covered, there is no evidence to suggest that the soils are not suitable. Therefore, the
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 is not expected to result in any impacts associated
with liquefaction, landslides, and unstable soils.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑
indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation ❑ f
adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant a; No Impact b. As discussed above under Response III.
Air Quality, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not change the conservative
construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction
activities set forth in the 2007 Addendum since additional construction or other
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 13
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less,Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
modifications would not occur beyond typical tenant improvements in and around existing
buildings. Thus, the modification to include additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses
would not result in any substantial GHG emissions related to construction.
With regard to operational GHG emissions, the removal of Condition of Approval No.
9 would not result in a change in GHG operational emissions relative to existing conditions
or those uses disclosed in the 2007 Addendum. Specifically, mobile source emissions are
directly dependent on the number of vehicular trips generated by a specified use, based on
trip rates established by ITE. As described above, the trip rate that applies to Westfield
Santa Anita is a "shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa Anita has and will continue to
meet the definition of a "shopping center," as set forth by ITE, either with or without the
proposed modification. This rate accounts for retail and restaurant uses. As the shopping
center rate would continue to be applied with the proposed modification, the trip generation
and the associated mobile source emissions would not change. Similarly, area source
emissions associated with the usage of natural gas would not change as a result of any
increase in restaurant space, since the natural gas usage rates for shopping centers and
restaurant uses set forth in the URBEMIS model are identical. Therefore, the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9 would involve no expansion of GHG emissions in comparison
to existing uses and would not change any of the significance conclusions set forth in the
2007 Addendum.
With the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9, the Project would continue to
support California's goal to reduce GHG emissions under CARB's Climate Change Scoping
Plan for the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB) 32. For example, the proposed uses
would be accessible to public transit and existing infrastructure would be available to
service the proposed restaurant uses. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would
also assist in providing a more complete and multi-faceted dining, entertainment, and
shopping experience for the community. This integration of land uses would serve to
reduce GHG emissions by reducing vehicle trips, promoting alternatives to individual
vehicle travel and promoting efficient delivery of services and goods. Therefore, the
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 14
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the
project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, ❑ ❑ El
where such a plan has not been adopted,within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑
would the project result in a safety hazard for the
people residing or working in the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, ❑ ❑ ❑
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact a—h. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in the
construction of new buildings and the proposed restaurant uses would be consistent with
existing uses within Westfield Santa Anita. As such, the removal of Condition of Approval
No. 9 to provide for additional restaurant uses in Phase lb in lieu of retail uses would not
generate, use, or dispose of hazardous materials that could pose public health hazards,
nor would the modification include the storage of explosives or combustible materials. In
addition, the Project site is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or airstrip. The
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would also not result in any roadway or access
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 15
Environmental Checklist Form
Ow
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
improvements and thus would not affect emergency access. Finally, as the Project site is
located in an urbanized area that is fully developed, the removal of Condition of Approval
No. 9 would not result in any impacts associated with wildland fires. Therefore, the
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in any impacts associated with
hazards/hazardous materials.
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ❑ ❑ ® ❑
requirements?
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑ ❑
substantially with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned land uses for which permits have
been granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ ED
site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?
d. 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?
e. 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ 0 ❑
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ❑ ❑
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Eg
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ Eg
loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
O
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 16
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
j. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ El
Less Than Significant Impact a. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 to
provide additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses may result in an increase in the
discharge of pollutants typically associated with restaurant uses, such as fats, oil, and
grease. However, the restaurant uses would continue to be required to comply with the
Phase 1 b Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) required by the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and City of Arcadia
requirements. The SUSMP for Phase lb incorporates Best Management Practices
(BMPs), which include grease interceptors for restaurants that are properly connected to
the public sanitary sewer and the use of Storm Filters that target primary non-point source
pollutants, such as suspended solids, oil and grease, soluble metals, nutrients, organics,
and trash and debris. With compliance with NPDES and City requirements, the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9 would not violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements and impacts associated with water quality would be less than
significant. Such impacts would be within the envelope of impacts set forth in the 2007
Addendum.
No Impact b—j. The proposed removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 to provide
additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would be implemented within the existing
buildings. Thus, grading and the construction of new buildings would not occur. As such,
the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not change existing drainage patterns or
impervious surfaces, substantially deplete groundwater supplies, interfere with groundwater
recharge, or result in increases in stormwater runoff quantities or velocities. In addition,
compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements associated
with operation would continue. Therefore, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9
would result in no impacts to hydrology/water quality.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ El
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?
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 17
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ El
or natural community conservation plan?
No Impact a—c. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in the
development of new buildings or the introduction of uses that would be incompatible with
existing uses already established on-site. Rather, the proposed additional restaurant uses
would be consistent with existing uses within the shopping center. In addition, with the
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9, uses and development within the shopping center
would continue to be consistent with the zoning regulations set forth for the site as well as
the City of Arcadia General Plan designation for the site of Regional Commercial. Tenant
improvements made as a result of the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would also
conform to the existing zoning regulations that guide the site. Thus, the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in impacts to land use and planning.
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?
No Impact a—b. No mineral resources are known to exist. In addition, construction
of new buildings and grading would not occur as part of the removal of Condition of
Approval No. 9. Thus, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in any
impacts to mineral resources.
XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ❑ ❑ Cl
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 ❑ ❑ Cl
groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 18
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ ❑ ® ❑
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
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?
No Impact a—c and e—f; Less than Significant Impact d. The closest noise-
sensitive uses are located a minimum of approximately 300 feet from the shopping center
uses in Phase 1 b. In addition, noise-sensitive uses are separated from Phase 1 b by
surface parking areas, and multi-lane roadways. The topography within the Project vicinity
and mature landscaping also provide a buffer between the Phase 1 b uses and adjacent
land uses. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 to provide an increase in restaurant
uses in Phase lb would occur within the existing buildings. Construction activities would
be limited to typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings and the majority
of the construction activities would occur within the interior of the buildings. Thus,
construction noise impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the short-term
construction activities would not change the conservative assumptions related to
construction equipment mix and peak construction activities set forth in the Addendum.
Rather, construction noise levels would be well within the impact envelope set forth in the
2007 Addendum.
As discussed above, the proposed condition removal would not change the trip
generation associated with operation of Phase 1 b. Thus, no impacts associated with traffic
noise would occur as a result of removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 and traffic noise
would be similar to that set forth in the 2007 Addendum.
Also, as loading areas would continue to operate as they do today, no impacts
associated with increases in noise levels are expected to occur with the removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9.
Westfield Santa Anita is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles
of a public airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, the removal of Condition
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 19
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
of Approval No. 9 would result in no impacts associated with proximity to an airport or
airstrip.
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 roads 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?
No Impact a—c. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not involve the
removal of any residential uses, nor would any new residential uses be proposed. Thus,
the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not displace existing housing or people or
result in substantial population growth. In addition, based on the employment factors set
forth in the Certified EIR and 2007 Addendum, which are based on employees per 1,000
square feet of shopping center uses, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not
change the employment calculations for Phase 1 b, which anticipated 150 full-time and 150
part-time employees. Thus, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in
impacts associated with population and housing.
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a. Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
b. Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑
c. Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑
d. Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e. Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 20
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
No Impact a—e. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in the
development of residential uses, which typically generate a demand for public services. In
addition, as described above, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not
generate an increase in on-site employment or an increase in building area. Furthermore,
as set forth in the 2007 Addendum, the Applicant will continue to implement security
measures including the provision of on-site security and the use of a closed circuit
television system. Thus, no impacts associated with fire protection, police protection,
schools, parks or libraries are expected.
XV. RECREATION.
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?
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 a—b. The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not include any
residential uses, nor would the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 result in an increase
in employment. Thus, the proposed modification would not result in a direct or indirect
demand for neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities. As such, no impacts related
to recreation would occur.
XVI. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. 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?
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 21
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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 ❑ El El
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? ❑ El El
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs El ❑ ❑
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,
or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of
such facilities?
No Impact a—f. The trip rate that applies to Westfield Santa Anita is a "regional
shopping center" rate since Westfield Santa Anita has and will continue to meet the
definition of a "regional shopping center," either with or without the proposed removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9. Specifically, ULI and the International Council of Shopping
Centers (ICSC) define a regional shopping center as a collection of land uses where at
least 80 percent of the uses within the project are retail. For purposes of a regional
shopping center, non-retail uses are defined by ULI and ICSC as restaurant, entertainment,
cinema and office uses. When the amount of restaurant, entertainment, cinema, and office
space exceeds 20 percent of the total square footage of the project, that project should be
considered a mixed-use development rather than a regional shopping center. As of
November 2013, non-retail uses within Westfield Santa Anita comprised approximately
14.6 percent of the shopping center. As discussed in detail in the technical memorandum
prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting included in Appendix A, Westfield could shift
approximately 78,910 square feet of existing retail uses to restaurant uses without
exceeding the 20-percent non-retail use threshold set forth for a shopping center.
Westfield does not propose to exceed this amount of additional restaurant uses. Thus, the
regional shopping center rate would continue to be applied with the proposed removal of
Condition of Approval No. 9 and the trip generation would not change. In addition, no
changes in access or modifications to roadways are proposed. Therefore, the proposed
removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 22
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
circulation system, result in changes in air traffic patterns, result in emergency access or
hazards impacts or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Thus, no impacts associated with transportation
would occur and the traffic associated with the additional restaurant uses would be
consistent with that set forth in the 2007 Addendum.
As shown in the parking demand analysis within the technical memorandum
prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, with the removal of Condition of Approval
No. 9, the existing parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces within the shopping center would
satisfy the code-parking requirement for the shopping center and the national parking
supply standards recommended by ULI/ICSC at all times of the year except December
weekends, during which the Applicant would continue its existing off-site employee parking
program. Specifically, the maximum increase of restaurant space allocation that would not
exceed the 20 percent non-retail use threshold for a shopping center would increase
off-site parking demand by a maximum of 286 parking spaces during the busiest hour of
the year (i.e., December weekends). However, even with this increased parking demand,
the proposed 6,204-space supply would still have over 1,000 empty parking spaces on
most days of the year. Thus, as with Phase 1 b as originally approved, parking demand
during December weekends would continue to be satisfied through an off-site employee
parking program for weekends throughout December. Thus, as with existing operations,
the Applicant would continue to present the details of the holiday parking program to the
City during the fall of each year to demonstrate the availability of the necessary off-site
spaces on an annual basis. Thus, with the proposed removal of Condition of Approval No.
9, parking impacts would continue to be less than significant as set forth in the 2007
Addendum.
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?
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 23
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm ❑ ❑ ❑
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ El
project from existing entitlements and resources,or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ El El
provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ El
capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and El ❑ El
regulations related to solid waste?
h. Other utilities and service systems? El ❑ ® El
No Impact a—g; Less Than Significant Impact h. The County Sanitation District of
Los Angeles County (CSDLAC) has set forth factors for wastewater generation within the
County Sanitation District No. 15's Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance. These factors
include a wastewater generation factor of 150 gallons per day per thousand square feet for
"regional mall" uses, which is the use that applies to the Project Site based on its size, its
inclusion of an enclosed mall and the number of anchors that are present within the Project
Site.' Applying this factor to the 115,000 square feet of uses existing in the Promenade
area results in wastewater generation of approximately 17,250 gallons per day. This factor
for "regional mall" accounts for the variety of uses typically located in a regional shopping
center, including both restaurant and retail uses. Thus, the potential conversion of retail
uses to restaurant uses would not result in an overall increase in the amount of wastewater
estimated to be generated from the shopping center. Furthermore, the 2007 Addendum for
Phase 1 b used a more conservative wastewater demand factor of 325 gallons per day per
thousand square feet for "shopping center" uses, although this factor is not representative
of the Project Site since a shopping center is typically much smaller than a regional center
Westfield Santa Anita currently includes 1,469,539 square feet of GLA. The International Council of
Shopping Centers classifies regional shopping centers as having more than 400,000 square feet and
super regional centers as having more than 800,000 square feet. In addition, Westfield Santa Anita
includes an enclosed mall. Thus, the "regional mall"factor is applicable to the Project.
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 24
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
or super regional center and typically is designed as an outdoor shopping center with a
smaller percentage of anchors. Use of this "shopping center" factor from the Addendum
results in wastewater generation of approximately 37,375 gallons per day(which is a higher
envelope of approved impacts in the certified 2007 Addendum). The proposed condition
removal would also not affect this calculation as both restaurant and retail uses are
accounted for in "shopping center" factor. In addition, not accounted for in either of these
factors are the numerous water conservation features that have been implemented within
Westfield Santa Anita, including the Promenade area, to conserve water and reduce
wastewater generation. For example, the Applicant has installed waterless urinals within
areas of the site. Each of these units reduces water usage by approximately 80,000 to
100,000 gallons per year on an annual basis. Furthermore, the Applicant would continue to
comply with the mitigation measures listed in the Addendum and Certified EIR that require
compliance with water conservation measures and replacement or repair of detector check
valves if leaking is found. Based on the above, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9
would not result in any impacts associated with wastewater infrastructure or wastewater
facilities.
Water demand is typically calculated using wastewater factors and multiplying the
factors by 125 percent. Thus, water demand associated with the removal of Condition of
Approval No. 9 would be based on CSDLAC's "regional mall" factor of 150 gallons per day
multiplied by 125 percent as this factor applies to the Project Site based on the amount of
GLA within the Project Site, the fact that the Project Site includes an enclosed mall and the
number of anchor tenants within the Project Site. Applying the "regional mall" factor to the
115,000 square feet of uses existing in the Promenade area and multiplying that result by
125 percent results in a water demand of approximately 21,563 gallons per day. As
discussed above, since the "regional mall" factor accounts for the variety of uses typically
found within a regional shopping center, including both retail and restaurant uses, the
proposed condition removal would not change the estimated demand for water generated
by the shopping center. The 2007 Addendum for Phase 1 b used a more conservative
water demand factor of 406.25 gallons per day per thousand square feet for "shopping
center" uses although this factor is not representative of the Project Site since a shopping
center is typically much smaller than a regional center or super regional center and typically
is designed as an outdoor shopping center with a smaller percentage of anchors. Use of
this "shopping center" factor from the Addendum results in a water demand of
approximately 46,719 gallons per day (which is a higher envelope of approved impacts in
the certified 2007 Addendum). The proposed condition removal would also not affect this
calculation as both restaurant and retail uses are accounted for in the "shopping center"
Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita ..
City of Arcadia P
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 25
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
factor. As described above, not accounted for in the water demand generated by either of
these factors are the numerous water conservation features that have been implemented
within Westfield Santa Anita to conserve water and reduce wastewater generation. Based
on the above, the proposed removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in any
impacts associated with water supplies or water infrastructure.
With regard to stormwater infrastructure, the proposed removal of Condition of
Approval No. 9 would not result in new building area. Rather, modifications would be
limited to typical tenant improvements in and around existing buildings that would not
change the amount of impervious surfaces or drainage patterns. Thus, no impacts to
drainage infrastructure would occur and the conclusions in the 2007 Addendum regarding
drainage infrastructure would not be affected.
With regard to the analysis of solid waste, the 2007 Addendum used the California
Integrated Waste Management Board's (now referred to as CalRecycle) generation rate for
"Shopping Center" uses, which accounts for retail and restaurant uses. Using this factor,
Phase lb was anticipated to generate 525 tons of solid waste per year. Since this factor
accounts for the variety of uses typically found within a shopping center, including both
retail and restaurant uses, the proposed condition removal would not change the estimated
solid waste generation for Phase 1 b. In addition, the mitigation measures set forth in the
Addendum and Certified EIR that require incorporation of storage and collection
recyclables into the project design, recycling of various materials, and collection of
recyclables in future refuse collection contracts would continue to be implemented.
Therefore, the proposed removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not result in any
impacts associated with solid waste.
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the El El ® ❑
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,
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?
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa Anita
Matrix Environmental February 2014
Page 26
Environmental Checklist Form
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ® ❑
limited, but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects,the effects of other
current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects).
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will ❑ ❑ ® ❑
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact a—c. As discussed above in the responses to
Questions IV. Biological Resources and V. Cultural Resources, the removal of Condition of
Approval No. 9 would not result in any impacts to biological or cultural resources.
Moreover, as the proposed modification would be implemented entirely within existing
buildings and proposed uses would be consistent with existing regional mall uses within
Westfield Santa Anita, no significant impacts would occur with respect to any other
environmental issue areas. Furthermore, all related projects would be subject to
environmental review on a project by project basis with mitigation measures implemented 4041/4
as necessary and feasible to reduce any potential significant impacts. Thus, proposed
condition removal together with related projects would not result in cumulative impacts.
The removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would also be within the envelope of the
cumulative impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. Furthermore, as demonstrated by
the responses above, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would not have
environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly. In addition, the removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 would
not result in new environmental impacts not previously evaluated in the 2007 Addendum.
Based on the above, removal of Condition of Approval No. 9 of Phase 1 b would not
result in any new significant environmental impacts. Rather, all of the environmental
impacts associated with Phase 1b would continue to be fully evaluated in the Certified EIR
and 2007 Addendum. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162.
ta
City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb of Westfield Santa nary Ani
a
Matrix Environmental
Page 27
31'
1---
;./ ------■1----
LO7 I .
\ o 0
0 ' .
7- __ _
_ ---
,
„--------rj,
,, N
•• \ ', \ 1 ,,
7 >, ''' ' ''
/
,...__
cs- /
N
ft ,s''' / •., 0 - ----- , -- ,
N '
7411' 0 / N___
45""' ® 0"
-II oe
estior 1417 e .4 i .e, N
\
- „ 1111MlecilEirolr r%....P.,....
,.„ limn ,....crlsol 9. -.....
murdigg ram cm --
i oxiitqa maul
., ,
0/ // // /,/4
/Arr I
.., .
/
ip.
,,,-, , •''4:4 ,11'.EA Lem--------9- 4
1 ,...■ 0 a Erlim, 1---...a..
/
I
/PP.*/ /
o /
/
/
0'4/ . /
-:!..:FMMIIIIVE,M3 ce -AR I LI r/ / I 4 / 0
a-7W ///// 0
1 L1 II' lle 8 n
101,11WITOI
On
4/ ,...
0.
(9 G -1-. .'
\ ,, ,: ' ''•\ , algal! '3 -9 $ S S a° 6
C) IS
„ II
se, 011
-/
...0i
I-, \ r ' 1 Iniek.,,IIVALISI °
■En.im...-101- c
.._. . ,
, ,, ,. 6 tj 0,,,e , ' ,I gii■FrArroa
■■■■•■
0 , ----
Fie '
a e
—
._i Winn 3 C. : i — • -,4
.:...
, 1
'-- „ --= 0
---i ---'
—______.
GC MAPPING SERVICE,INC.
LEGEND CASE NO
3055 WEST VALLEY BOULEVARD CITY OF ARCADIA DATE 12-12-2013
1( ALHAMBRA CA 91803 0 OWNERSHIP NO.
(626)441-1080 FAX(626)441-8850 1000' RADIUS MAP -. OWNERSHIP 4001< SCALE 1”=200
OWNERSHIP MAP