Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1a - Resolution No. 7028 regarding Westfield Santa Anita MallGgLI F O «a A., du 5, $, ry190i STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: May 6, 2014 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Assistant City Manager /Development Services Director Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 7028 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 2005 -026 AND TO RESOLUTION NO. 6562, CONCERNING RESTAURANT USES IN PHASE 113 ( "THE PROMENADE ") OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL, WITH CONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY On January 27, 2014, the City received a request from Westfield, LLC to remove a condition of approval (Condition No. 9) in City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 (refer to Attachment No. 2) limiting restaurant uses in Phase 1 b (The Promenade) of the Westfield Santa Anita mall. An Initial Study was conducted for this project, and it was found that the removal of Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for The Promenade 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 for the project. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required for the City Council to approve the request. It is recommended that the City Council approve this request and remove this Condition. 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 Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562 400 S. Baldwin Avenue May 6, 2014 Page 2 of 6 the shopping center. The restaurant limitation was only added to the original conditions because Westfield had shown a maximum number of 10,000 square feet of this use on the plan submittal. The number simply was lifted from the plans and made a condition of approval; there was no additional analysis completed on this issue at the time. 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. However, Caruso Affiliated Santa Anita Associates filed a lawsuit against the City and Westfield, alleging inadequate environmental review. Subsequently, Westfield withdrew the request. On December 6, 2011, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 6805 (refer to Attachment No. 3) approving an amendment to Resolution No. 6562 to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet (this includes outdoor dining) to enhance the activities at The Promenade, and add a new condition of approval that required the applicant to re -plant 21 trees in existing, but empty tree wells along Baldwin Avenue. In 2012, Westfield planted 21 new, 15- gallon Crape Myrtle trees in response to this condition. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting to remove Condition No. 9, which limits restaurant use 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 any additional restaurant space would be in place of existing retail space. The removal of the condition will give the Applicant added flexibility to respond to market conditions. There is no limitation on restaurant space 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.). The reason for this stems from the Environmental Impact Report for the project, and the definition of the mall as a regional shopping center. For the purposes of analyzing parking impacts, 20% is the maximum amount of non - retail uses in a regional commercial center for it to be a "shopping center" as defined by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). The current non - retail space in the entire mall amounts to approximately 14.6% of the total square- footage (213,078 sf / 1,459,940 sf = 14.6 %). Twenty percent (20 %) would be 291,988 square feet. To determine whether 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 (refer to Attachment No. 5). Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562 400 S. Baldwin Avenue May 6, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Parking The proposal does not increase the potential for parking demand on the site as a whole. The proposal merely removes a condition on allowable retail mixes in The Promenade area and maintains the limitations applicable to the entire site. Therefore, while The Promenade area may see an increase in restaurant uses, the mall will maintain the overall maximum of 20% non - retail uses. As such, potential parking demand will be the same. The Westfield Santa Anita mall 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 it needed a total on- site parking supply of 5,908 spaces. Therefore, the Westfield Santa Anita mall has a parking surplus of 296 spaces. In addition to a traditional parking study, a parking demand assessment was conducted that analyzed how much parking would be needed at particular times and days. The assessment determined that the only times when the parking demand would exceed the on -site supply is on weekends during the holiday shopping season. As such, the mall is required as a condition of approval to contract for additional parking spaces; this is typically accomplished on the adjoining Santa Anita Race Track site. 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 and staff will validate the number of spaces needed. 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 study is that the requested elimination of the limit on restaurant space at The Promenade 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 threshold 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 the analyses and determinations of the 2007 Addendum to the EIR. Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562 400 S. Baldwin Avenue May 6, 2014 Page 4 of 6 Planning Commission Action The request to eliminate the limit on restaurants in The Promenade was presented to the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on March 25, 2014, for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. At this meeting, the only public speaker was Mr. Scott Sayer, an Arcadia resident, who stated that he was not opposed to the request, but was concerned with the conditions of the trees along Baldwin Avenue, and that in his opinion, four of them appeared dead, and 10 of them were distressed due to lack of water. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1901 on a 4 -0 vote, with one Commissioner recused, to recommend approval to the City Council to remove Condition No. 9 to eliminate the restaurant limit at The Promenade, and for Westfield to address the condition of the trees along Baldwin Avenue. The Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting and Resolution are provided as Attachment No. 4. Trees Along Baldwin Avenue With regard to the condition of the Crape Myrtle trees along Baldwin Avenue, the City's Arborist evaluated the trees and determined that five of them are dead and eight of them are in distress, but can survive with proper irrigation. It is recommended that approval of this proposal be subject to a condition that Westfield add a drip- irrigation system to the tree wells and that new, 15- gallon, Crape Myrtle trees replace the dead trees within 30 days from the approval. To ensure survival, the trees in distress are to be carefully monitored, and if they do not survive, they will be replaced with new, 15- gallon trees. Based on the foregoing, the removal of Condition No. 9 will give Westfield Santa Anita added flexibility to respond to market conditions and it will enhance the activities at The Promenade and the mall in general. In addition, based on the parking report prepared by Gibson Transportation Consulting, Inc., the requested amendment will not result in any significant 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 need 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): 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 Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562 400 S. Baldwin Avenue May 6, 2014 Page 5 of 6 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 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 lb and Phase 2 of the Project. According to the Addendum, the implementation of Phase lb 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 1 b 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 deletion of Condition No. 9 have been evaluated and fully mitigated, to the extent feasible, in the Final EIR and the Addendum. The requested amendment would not result in any new or more significant impacts. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required for the City Council to adopt the attached Resolution No. 7028 (Pub. Res. Code § 21166; State CEQA Guidelines §15162). All of the necessary CEQA findings are set forth in the attached Resolution. On March 25, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council make the necessary CEQA findings set forth in the attached Resolution and approve the requested amendment. Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562 400 S. Baldwin Avenue May 6, 2014 Page 6 of 6 FISCAL IMPACT There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this project. RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 7028 approving an amendment to Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 and to Resolution No. 6562, concerning restaurant uses in Phase lb ( "The Promenade ") of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall, with consideration of a previously Certified Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report. Approved_ Dominic LazzaretI6 City Manager Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 7028 Attachment No. 2: Resolution No. 6562 (Approval of The Promenade — Phase 1 b) Attachment No. 3: Resolution No. 6805 (Amendment to Resolution No. 6562 to increase the restaurant space in The Promenade) Attachment No. 4: Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901 and Minutes of the March 25, 2014 Meeting Attachment No. 5: Parking and Traffic Study by Gibson Transportation Consulting, dated January 31, 2014 Attachment No. 6: Initial Environmental Study RESOLUTION NO. 7028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 2005 -026 AND TO RESOLUTION NO. 6562, CONCERNING RESTAURANT USES IN PHASE 1B ( "THE PROMENADE ") OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL, WITH CONSIDERATION OF A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 1 b° ( "The Promenade "); and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6562 ( "Resolution No. 6562 ") conditionally approving ADR 2005 -026 for The Promenade expansion of the Mali, subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services Department; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6805 conditionally approving an amendment to ADR 2005 -026 to increase the restaurant space in Phase 1b from 10,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet, subject to conditions of approval; 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 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 by City Council Resolution Nos. 6561 and 6562; and WHEREAS, on January 29, 2014, the City received a request from Westfield, LLC (as successor -in- interest to Westfield Corporation, Inc.) to remove Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 6562 (ADR 2005 -026) limiting restaurant uses in Phase 1 b; 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; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2014, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 with one Commissioner recused, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901 to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Amendment, approve the Initial Study that was conducted for this project that no additional environmental review is required since the project would not result in new significant or more severe environmental impacts compared to the impacts previously disclosed and evaluated in the 2000 Final EIR and 2007 Addendum, and to address the conditions of the trees along Baldwin Avenue; and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2014, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence. -2- 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 elimination of Condition No. 9 to Resolution No. 6562 complies with the following CEQA Guidelines Section 15162: 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 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 remove Condition No. 9: wren- - - �A� -3- SECTION 3. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended by amending Condition No. 34 to read as follows: "34. The applicant shall install a new drip irrigation system to the 21 tree wells along Baldwin Avenue and plant new 15- gallon Crape Myrtle trees in the replacement of the five dead trees within thirty (30) days from this approval. To ensure survival, any trees in distress shall be carefully monitored, and if they do not survive the applicant shall promptly replace them with new 15 gallon Crape Myrtle trees to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director." SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2014. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: j � o /44" Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney -4- Mayor of the City of Arcadia 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. 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 2 6562 Administrative Record, the Staff Report (which includes recommended findings), and the draft resolutions for final action on ADR 2005 -026. SECTIN I 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. 9 . 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 1b, 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 1 b, 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 EIR. 7. Phase 1 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 mail. 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. F=lat, 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 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 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 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. G. 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. Westfiield'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 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 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 1 ST day of May. ATTEST: Vitlerk APPROVED AS TO FORM P Stephen Deitsch City Attorney r� N Mayor of the City of rcadia 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 15{ 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 1�2 '-- Ar,-) - '-, ity Clerk of the City ofArcadia 21 6562 RESOLUTION NO. 6805 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2005 -026 AND RESOLUTION 6562 REGARDING THE PHASE 113 EXPANSION (THE PROMENADE) OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL AT 400 S. BALDWIN AVENUE TO INCREASE THE RESTAURANT SPACE FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO 30,000 SQUARE FEET. 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 "Mail "), more commonly known as "Phase 1 b" (The Promenade); and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6562 ( "Resolution No. 6562 ") conditionally approving ADR 2005 -026 for the expansion of the Mall, more commonly known as "Phase 1b ", 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 received a request from Westfield, LLC (as successor -in- interest to Westfield Corporation, Inc.) to amend Condition No. 9 (the "Amendment ") of Resolution No. 6562 (ADR 2005 -026 of the Phase 1 b 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 November 22, 2011, 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; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 4 -0 (one Commissioner was recused) to recommend to the City Council approval of the requested Amendment and to approve the Addendum to the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2011, the City Council conducted a noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and 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 -2- or any other CEQA document is not required because the modification of condition no. 9 to Resolution No. 6562: 9. 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 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 by amending Condition No. 9 to read as follows: "9. Restaurant uses within Phase I b shall be limited to a maximum of 30,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which includes outdoor dining." SECTION 3. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended by adding Condition No. 34 to read as follows: "34. The applicant shall re -plant twenty one (21) missing trees in the existing empty tree wells along Baldwin Avenue of a size and species as approved by the Development Services Department within thirty (30) days of obtaining a permit -3- for the first restaurant that causes gross leasable area for restaurants in Phase I b to exceed 1 0,000 sq. ft." SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 6 day of December, 2011. ATTEST: /s/ JAMES BARROWS City Cleric APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 0 /s/ GARY A. KOVACIC Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS: CITY OF ARCADIA } 1, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6805 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 6th day of December, 2011 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Segal and Kovacic NOES: None ABSENT: None 5 W JAMES BARROWS City Clerk of the City of Arcadia RESOLUTION NO. 1901 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENT OF 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 18 (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 1 b" (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 Mall, more commonly known as "Phase lb", 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 ( °CEQX) 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 1 b 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 1b 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 PLANNING COMMISSION 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 -2- 1901 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 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 9 b 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 lb (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 17-A /] Passed, approved and adopted this day of / N0,14, 2014 ATTEST: - (I 5e ary APPROVED AS TO FORM: 8teOhdn P. D " ch City Attorney Chairman, Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) �: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, Jim Kasama, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 1901 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Chairperson and attested to by the Secretary at a regular meeting of said Planning Commission held on the 25th day of March, 2014, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone and Parrille NOES: None RECUSED: Commissioner Chiao Secret ! ry -of the Planning Commission C„trvya._ ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014 - EXCERPT- 4. Resolution No. 1901 — Recommendation to the City Council deleting Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 from Architectural Design Review No. 2005 -026 regarding the Phase lb (The Promenade) expansion at Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue, and consideration of a previously Certified EIR (2000) and EIR Addendum (2007), and making findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Applicant: Westfield, LLC Recommended action: Adopt Resolution No. 1901 and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Services Manager, Lisa Flores, presented the staff report. Chairman Beranek opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of this project. Elan Feldman, from Westfield, responded. Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this project. Scott Sayre, a neighbor, responded that he is not opposed to the project but wanted to state that he is concerned about the condition of the trees at the mall. Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal. The applicant declined. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Falzone, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to close the Public Hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Falzone, to adopt Resolution No. 1901 to recommend deleting Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for Architectural Design Review No. 2005 -026 regarding the Phase lb (The Promenade) expansion of Westfield Santa Anita Mall, and to address the condition of the trees. ROLL CALL AYES: Commissioners Baerg, Beranek, Falzone, and Parrille NOES: None RECUSED: Commissioner Chiao (iD,ibson 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 (so of gross leasable area (GLA)'. 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 213.683.0088 213.683.0033 Mr. Jason Kruckeberg Ms. Lisa Flores 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 • 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. ULI/ ICSC PARKING RATIOS ULI /ICSC's Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, 2nd 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, 2nd 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. Existina and Fully Occuaied Parkina 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 1 C — 1 E 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 1 C and 1 D. Exhibits 1 C and 1 D 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. EXHIBIT 1A SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY - Existing Space -- 100% Occupied Conditions' J1008 -Westfield Santa Anita PEAK MONTH, DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD, 3 PM_ WEEKEND Projected Par ing Supply: 6204 Stalls Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Quantity Unit Non- Base Mode Captive Project Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Non- Base Mode Captive Project Rate Adj Ratio Rate Unit Peak Hr Adj Peak Mo Adj Estimated Parking Demand Peak Hr Ad Peak Mo Ad Estimated Parking Demand 2 PM December 3 PM December Super Regional Shopping Center ( >600 ksf) 1,246,862 sf GLA 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.70 /ksf GLA 3.95 1.00 1.00 3.95 /ksf GLA 2.00 1.00 4,240 1.00 1.00 4,925 Employee 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.45 /ksf GLA 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 561 1.00 1.00 1,259 Fine /Casual Dining Restaurant 104,319 sf GLA 5.99 1.00 0.75 4.49 /ksf GLA 17.00 1.00 0.66 11.22 /ksf GLA 0.90 1.00 422 0.45 1.00 527 Em to ee 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 /ksf GLA 0.90 1.00 93 0.75 1.00 235 Cineplex 3,014 seats 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 /seat 0.26 1.00 0.66 0.17 /seat 0.55 0.23 54 0.55 0.67 191 Employee 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.60 0.50 9 0.75 0.80 18 Health Club 34,821 sf GLA 6.60 1.00 1.00 6.60 /ksf GLA 5.50 1.00 1.00 5.50 ff/ksfG 075 090 155 030 090 52 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.40 /ksf GLA 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.75 1.00 11 0.50 1.00 5 ULI base data have been modified from default values based on site - specific empirical data. Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results Customer 4871 Customer 5695 Employee 674 Employee 1517 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 5545 Total 7212 EXHIBIT1B PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY - Existing Space ­100% Occupied Conditions' J1008 -Westfield Santa Anita December Weekday Estimated Peak -Hour Parking Demand Projected Parking Supply: 6204 Stalls Overall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak H Monthly Adj 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM 2 PM 11 AM 2 PM 6 PM Super Regional Shopping Center ( >600 ksf) 100% 42 212 636 1,272 2,332 3,180 3,816 4,240 4,240 4,240 4,028 3,604 3,392 3,180 2,756 2,120 1,272 424 4,240 3,180 4,240 3,392 Employee 100% 56 84 224 421 477 533 561 561 561 561 561 533 533 533 505 421 224 84 561 533 561 533 Fine /Casual Dining Restaurant 100% 70 188 413 413 422 408 422 431 445 469 469 422 398 352 117 422 188 422 445 Employee 100% 21 52 77 93 93 93 93 93 77 77 103 103 103 103 103 103 88 36 93 93 93 103 Cineplex Weekday 23% 20 44 54 54 64 59 59 79 99 99 79 64 40 54 54 59 Employee 50% 8 9 9 11 11 15 15 15 15 15 15 11 8 9 9 15 Health Club 90% 145 83 83 145 145 166 124 145 155 166 176 186 207 186 166 145 72 21 155 166 155 207 Employee 100% 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 14 14 11 7 3 3 3 11 11 1 11 14 Customer 187 295 719 1,417 2,547 3,534 4,373 4,842 4,871 4,868 4,690 4,280 4,103 3,914 3,490 2,786 1,821 861 157 4,871 3,534 4,871 4,103 Subtotal Demand by User Type Employee 67 116 287 509 581 637 673 674 674 660 660 665 665 662 630 542 345 186 44 674 637 674 665 Reserved ���� GRAND TOTAL DEMAND 1 254 411 1 1,006 1 1,926 1 3,128 1 4,171 1 5,046 1 5,516 1 5,545 1 5,528 1 5,350 1 4,945 1 4,768 1 4,576 1 4,120 1 3,328 1 2,166 1 1,047 1 201 5,545 1 4,171 5,545 4,768 ULI base data have been modified from default values based on site-specific empirical data. 5,545 4,171 5,545 4,768 sawaa©H roomorefs /: 'Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results Weekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking Demand ETNUTPUM Super Regional Shopping Center 600 Subtotal Demand by User Type �aaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeea ���� roomorefs /: 'Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results 7000 6000 5000 U) 4000 �a Cn a► L 3000 ca a 2000 1000 0 EXHIBIT 1C WEEKDAY MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Existing Space 100% Occupied' Jan Feb Mar Apr May 'Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results Jun Jul Month Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late Dec N 7000 5000 U) to a► 4000 L a 3000 2000 1000 9 EXHIBIT 1 D WEEKEND MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Existing Space 100% Occupied' Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late Dec 'Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, Month therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results n- 11111] 7000 .m 5000 U) to a► 4000 L a 3000 2000 1000 0 EXHIBIT 1E PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR Existing Space 100% Occupied' P� P� P� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� Q� le P- 0 1 0 0 No ,�� ,�ti ^ �, h 0 1 0 0 'Shopping Center average occupancy is 97 %, Hour therefore 100% occupancy provides conservative analysis results EXHIBIT 2A SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY - Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions J1008 -Westfield Santa Anita PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER -- PEAK PERIOD: 6 PM. WEEKEND Projected Par ing Supply: 6204 Stalls Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Land Use Project Data Quantity Unit Non- Base Mode Captive Project Rate Adi Ratio Rate Unit Non- Base Mode Captive Project Rate Adi Ratio Rate Unit Peak Hr Adj Peak Mo Adj Estimated Parking Demand Peak Hr Ad Peak Mo Adj Estimated Parking Demand 2 PM December 6 PM December Super Regional Shopping Center ( >600 ksf) 1,167,952 sf GLA 1.70 1.00 1.00 1.70 /ksf GLA 3.95 1.00 1.00 3.95 /ksf GLA 2.00 1.00 3,972 0.80 1.00 3,690 Employee 0.45 1.00 1.00 0.45 /ksf GLA 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.01 /ksf GLA 1.00 1.00 526 0.85 1.00 1,003 Fine /Casual Dining Restaurant 183,229 sf GLA 5.99 1.00 0.75 4.49 /ksf GLA 17.00 1.00 0.66 11.22 /ksf GLA 0.90 1.00 741 0.90 1.00 1,850 Em to ee 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.99 /ksf GLA 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 /ksf GLA 0.90 1.00 163 1.00 1.00 550 Cineplex 3,014 seats 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 /seat 0.26 1.00 0.66 0.17 /seat 0.55 0.23 54 0.60 0.67 208 Employee 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.60 0.50 9 1.00 0.80 24 Health Club 34,821 sf GLA 6.60 1.00 1.00 6.60 /ksf GLA 5.50 1.00 1.00 5.50 /ksf GLA 0.75 0.90 155 0.95 0.90 164 Employee 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.40 /ksf GLA 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 /ksf GLA 0.75 1.00 11 1.00 1.00 9 ULI base data have been modified from default values based on site - specific empirical data. Customer 4922 Customer 5912 Employee 709 Employee 1586 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 5631 Total 7498 EXHIBIT 2B PEAK MONTH SHARED PARKING SUMMARY - Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions J1008 - Westfield Santa Anita r Weekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking Demand Subtotal Demand by User Type �eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ���� IULI base data have been mocturiect trom aetauit values based on site-specific empirical data. �� r zaiwwm Weekend Estimated Peak-Hour Parking Demand Subtotal Demand by User Type �eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeea ���� IULI base data have been mocturiect trom aetauit values based on site-specific empirical data. �� zaiwwm 7000 •111 5000 w 4000 ca Cn a► i 3000 ca a 2000 1000 C1] EXHIBIT 2C WEEKDAY MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late Dec Month 7000 5000 ca in 4000 a► L a 3000 2000 1000 C1] EXHIBIT 2D WEEKEND MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Late Dec Month n- 11111] 7000 5000 m a, 4000 L a c$ 411111] 1000 0 EXHIBIT 2E PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions Q� Hour 0011111 5000 U) 4000 -a Cn a► 3000 a 2000 1000 0 EXHIBIT 3 JUNE DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR Hypothetical Test Case with Increased Restaurant Conditions Q� Q� 0 1 0 1 0 �o ,�� �ti ^ ti o h o w Hour EXHIBIT 4 PEAK PARKING CONDITIONS WITH INCREASED RESTAURANT SPACE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA CONDITION SHOPPING CENTER SIZE (SF GLA) [1] PEAK DECEMBER PARKING DEMAND RETAIL RESTAURANT CINEMA HEALTH TOTAL WEEKDAY OFF -SITE SATURDAY OFF -SITE CLUB PARKING PARKING NEEDED NEEDED EXISTING 1,246,862 104,319 73,938 34,821 1,459,940 5,545 0 7,212 1,008 1,226,181 125,000 73,938 34,821 1,459,940 5,569 0 7,259 1,055 1,201,181 150,000 73,938 34,821 1,459,940 5,595 0 7,319 1,115 1,176,181 175,000 73,938 34,821 1,459,940 5,621 0 7,427 1,223 MAX NON - RETAIL 1,167,952 183,229 73,938 34,821 1,459,940 5,631 0 7,498 1,294 [1] SF GLA is square feet of gross leaseable area 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 1 b (Promenade) of Westfield Santa Anita `�'I Kw 1� ARCANA 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 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 Progerty 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 indust 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 1b) or the center. Furthermore the space to be City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 11b 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 t ical tenant improvements in and around the existing buildings. Surrounding land uses and settings: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Lands near the l2rogerty are generally developed with urban uses. North of the property is the Santa Anita Park horse racing track, with stables immediately adjoining 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. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase lb 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 ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Land Use /Planning ❑ Population /Housing ❑ Transportation /Traffic ❑ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities /Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ 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) 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. Signature Li-!) 0�- �-- loo s Printed Name Date 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 15063(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 lb 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 1 b 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 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ❑ El 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IK 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 1b. Architectural materials would be similar to that previously evaluated for Phase 1b 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 lb 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: 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 -21D 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 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 1b 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 Income _ 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 lb 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ 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 1b 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? ❑ [] ❑ IR 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 1 b 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant a; No Impact b. As discussed above under Response Ill. 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 1b 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 CARS'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 ❑ ❑ ❑ IR where such a plan has not been adopted, within two project: project result in a safety hazard for people residing or a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or people residing or working in the project area? disposal of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ❑ adopted emergency response plan or emergency b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where 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, ❑ ❑ ❑ IR 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 1 b 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 1 b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental February 2014 Page 15 Environmental Checklist Form 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 Matrix Environmental uses or planned land uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 lb 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 1b 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 1b 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. Xlli. 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 1b 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs ❑ ❑ ❑ regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 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 proiect, 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 1b 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 lb 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 1 b 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ ❑ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? h. Other utilities and service systems? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 mail" 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 r Westfield Santa Anita currently includes 9,469,539 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 mail 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 lb 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" City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita 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 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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 1b 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 1V. 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 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 lb 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 El and 2007 Addendum. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. City of Arcadia Proposed Modification to Phase 1b of Westfield Santa Anita Matrix Environmental February 2014 Page 27