Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 - Part 2 of 3_SPAmendment_GPA_ZC Attachment No. 3
Amended Draft Initial Study/MND and
Comments from Agencies
Attachment No. 3
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF ARCADIA
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Specific Plan 13-02 Amendment No. SPA 16-05
General Plan Amendment No. GPA 16-04
September 28, 2016
Lead Agency:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92507
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
ii
ARCADIA SEABISCUIT PACIFICA AMENDMENT PROJECT
CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 1
1.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................... 2
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................... 3
2.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS ........................ 14
SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION .................................................. 16
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................. 16
3.2 DETERMINATION...................................................................................... 16
SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION ................................ 17
I. AESTHETICS ............................................................................................ 17
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ....................................................................... 20
III. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................ 22
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................... 29
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 32
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ............................................................................... 36
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................................................. 39
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................... 43
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................... 47
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING ........................................................................ 55
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 60
XII. NOISE ..................................................................................................... 61
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING ..................................................................... 66
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................... 68
XV. RECREATION ............................................................................................ 69
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ...................................................................... 71
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ............................................................ 76
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ................................................. 80
SECTION 4 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................ 82
4.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. ............................................................................. 82
4.2 CITY OF ARCADIA .................................................................................... 82
SECTION 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................... 83
SECTION 6 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................. 87
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
iii
APPENDICES (on CD)
A Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan No. 13-02
B Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study
C Historical Assessment
D Geotechnical Constraints
E Phase 1 Hazmat Study
F Hydrology and Water Quality Studies
G Traffic Impact Assessment
H Noise Assessment
LIST OF TABLES
Table A: Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan Land Uses ................................................. 13
Table B: Short-term Construction Impacts ............................................................... 25
Table C: Long-Term Operational Emissions .............................................................. 25
Table D: Construction LST Impacts (pounds per day) ............................................... 27
Table E: Long-Term Operational LST Numbers (pounds per day) ............................... 28
Table F: Short-Term Construction GHG Emissions ..................................................... 40
Table G: Long-Term Operational Project GHG Emissions ........................................... 41
Table H: General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ......................................... 56
Table I: Summary of Intersection Analysis (2013) .................................................... 72
Table J: Summary of Intersection analysis (2016) .................................................... 72
Table K: Summary of Roadway Analysis Existing (2016) ............................................ 73
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location ...................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph ...................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Site Photographs ....................................................................................... 6
Figure 4: Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Landscaping Plan ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 6: Project Elevations .................................................................................... 10
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
1
SECTION 1 BACKGROUND
1.1 SUMMARY
Project Title:
Arcadia Seabiscuit Pacifica
Specific Plan Amendment
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91006
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Lisa Flores, Planning Services Manager
(626) 574-5445
Project Location:
240 West Huntington Drive
Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Continental Asset Management1
488 East Santa Clara Street
Arcadia, California 91006
General Plan Designation:
Commercial - Downtown Overlay (FAR 1.0)
Zoning Designation:
General Commercial (C-2) with Height
Overlay H-8 (95 feet or 8 stories)
1.2 INTRODUCTION
The City of Arcadia incorporated in 1904 and has had contributed to the rich history of
Southern California for over 100 years. The City is home to the famous Santa Anita Park
horse racing track. In 1955, the Santa Anita Inn, a 2-story hotel with 110 rooms, was
constructed on 5.73 acres just east of Santa Anita Park to provide lodging for park
workers, jockeys, guests, and management. Continental Assets Management, acting as
Seabiscuit Pacifica, LLC, proposed a new hotel and condominium project on the existing
hotel site and in 2014 received approval of the Seabiscuit Specific Plan.
The original Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan proposed to construct two hotels, a Marriott
Residence Inn and Fairfield Inn and Suites, with a total of 210 rooms or units, and a
hotel condominium tower with 50 units. The project was intended to continue to provide
lodging for guests and workers of Santa Anita Park as well as other visitors to the City.
The project was to be completed in two phases - Phase 1 would consist of the two
hotels with hotel surface parking, plus a portion of the existing Santa Anita Inn would
remain in service until Phase 2 had begun. Phase 2 would consist of the hotel
condominium tower, garage parking, and condo surface parking. The Residence Inn
would have six floors with a maximum height of 80 feet. The Fairfield Inn and Suites
1 Doing business as Seabiscuit Pacifica LLC for this project.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
2
would have four floors with a maximum height of 60 feet. During Phase 1, surface
parking with 211 spaces for both hotels will also be developed. In Phase 2, the hotel
condominium tower was proposed to have eight floors and include 9 townhouses, 36
condos, 5 penthouses, and subterranean parking. The condominium tower would have
a maximum height of 88 feet to the roof and 98 feet including the penthouse
architecture. During Phase 1, a portion of the existing hotel would be demolished, but
63 units will remain in operation until the start of Phase 2 construction, at which time
the remaining hotel buildings would be demolished.
Since the time the project was approved, the applicant has been unable to acquire
financing for the hotel condominium portion of the project, and so is requesting an
amendment to the Specific Plan to allow residential condominiums rather than hotel
condominiums. In addition, the applicant is asking for a General Plan Amendment for
the site from downtown commercial to downtown mixed use. The condominium tower in
Phase 2 would have 6,762 square feet of office/retail uses to fulfill the General Plan
requirement of ground floor commercial in mixed use projects. The entitlements needed
for this modification are outlined in Section 2.
SECTION 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Location and Existing Uses
The Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan Amendment (SPSPA or proposed project) proposes
to construct two hotels, a Marriott Residence Inn and Fairfield Inn and Suites, and a
residential condominium tower in the City of Arcadia. The project is intended to provide
lodging for guests and workers of the nearby Santa Anita Park race track. The project
site occupies approximately 5.9 acres and is located at 100-130 West Huntington Drive
in Arcadia The main Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) of the site is 577-501-4014 and is
found on the Mt. Wilson 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangle. It is located in Township 1
North, Range 11 West (no section listed) and is at latitude 34◦ 08’ 21.7” North and
longitude 118◦ 02’ 77” West,). The project site has an existing 110-room (34,775 square
feet) hotel on it that the developer plans to demolish. The proposed project site is
bounded by Colorado Place to the north, the Arcadia City Hall complex to the south,
West Huntington Drive to the east, and Huntington Drive to the west. Figures 1 and 2
show the location of the project site and surrounding land uses, while Figure 3 provides
photographs of the project site and surrounding land uses. The project consists of
Specific Plan Amendment No. SP 16-05 and General Plan Amendment No. GPA
16-04.
The project site currently contains the Santa Anita Inn with 110 hotel rooms which was
built in 1955. The project site is a potential historical significance due to its age and
connection to the nearby Santa Anita Park race track. The developer plans to eventually
demolish all of the existing buildings on the project site.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
3
2.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
Existing Specific Plan. The following description is for the original Seabiscuit Pacifica
Specific Plan project processed through the City in 2014. This information is provided for
context prior to describing the currently proposed Specific Plan Amendment and related
entitlements:
The Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan project proposes a total of 257,589 square feet of
commercial uses with 142,320 square feet of “dual” (connected) hotel space in two
buildings and 115,269 square feet of condominiums with 50 total units including 6,762
square feet of office/retail uses to meet the General Plan requirements for mixed use
projects. Figure 4 shows the proposed project site plan. For financial reasons, the
applicant has proposed to develop the project in two phases - Phase 1 will consist of the
Residence Inn, Fairfield Inn and Suites, a portion of the existing Santa Anita Inn, and
surface parking, while Phase 2 will consist of the mixed use/condominium tower, garage
parking, and surface parking. Phase 1 includes constructing a total of 145,000 square
feet of hotel space in two connected buildings, the Marriot Residence Inn and the
Fairfield Inn and Suites. The two hotels will contain a total of 210 rooms. The
Residence Inn will have six floors with a maximum height of approximately 80 feet. The
Fairfield Inn and Suites will have four floors with a maximum height of approximately 60
feet.
During Phase 1, both new hotels will be constructed, a portion of the Santa Anita Inn
will be demolished, but the 4 southern-most buildings (C-F) with 63 rooms of the
existing hotel will remain in operation until the start of Phase 2 construction. Phase 1
will also include surface parking with 197 spaces for both new hotels plus adequate
parking for the portion of the Santa Anita Inn that will remain in service. Phase 2
includes demolition of the remaining Santa Anita Inn buildings and construction of the
condominium tower with 115,269 square feet and 50 total units. The condominium
tower will have eight floors and include 9 townhouses, 36 condos, 5 penthouses, and
subterranean parking. The condominium tower will have a maximum height of 88 feet
to the roof and 98 feet including the penthouse architecture. The basement parking,
which will be constructed during Phase 2, will contain 73 parking spaces. The Phase 2
surface parking will include 98 parking spaces. Table A provides a summary of the
various uses proposed as part of this project. The project landscape plan is shown in
Figure 5, and project elevations are shown in Figure 6. Appendix A contains the
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan. Grading for the project will require approximately 7,000
cubic yards of fill but will be largely balanced onsite, although there may be some need
for offsite soil transport.
COLORADO PLACE
HUNTINGTON DRIVE
HUNTINGTON DRIVEHUNTINGTON DRIVE
FIGURE 1
Seabiscuit Pacifica ProjectSpecific Plan
Regional and Project Location
01,0002,000
Feet
S!!N
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig1_reg_loc.mxd (8/13/2013)
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quads: El Monte (81), CA; Mt. Wilson (88), CA; Thomas Bros., 2009
?Ý
Aä
?l!"^$
%&o(
!"`$
?q
A»
%&l(
A»
!"a$
!"`$
%&l(
!"^$
KË
%&g(
%&g(
AË
A¥
!"a$
!"a$
!"`$KË
Pacific Ocean
Los Angeles County
Orange County
San Bernardino County
Riverside County
Regional Location
01020
Miles
S!!N
Project Location
¦§¨¦210
Project Area
SOURCE: Gene Fong Associates, 2013
N
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig2_Aerial_Photo.cdr (8/13/13)
FIGURE 2
Aerial Photograph
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
FIGURE 3
Photograph 1:View facing south, from the north side of the site, of the Santa
Anita Inn entryway.
Photograph 3:View facing southwest, from Huntington Drive, of the
Colorado Place and Huntington Drive intersection with the
Santa Anita Park racetrack in the background.
Photograph 2:View facing south, from the center of the site, of the interior
landscaping and gazebo.
Photograph 4:View facing southwest of the Santa Anita Park racetrack, from
northwest of the site on West Huntington Drive.
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig3_SitePhotos.cdr (08/14/13)
Site Photographs
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
LANDSCAPED
ENTRY
SOURCE: Gene Fong Associates, 2013
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig4_SitePlan.cdr (9/15/16)
FIGURE 4
Proposed Site Plan
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
SOURCE: Gene Fong Associates and Wilson Associates, 2013
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig5_Landscape.cdr (8/13/13)
FIGURE 5
Landscape Plan
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
SOURCE: Gene Fong Associates, April 1, 2015.
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig6ab_Elevations.cdr (09/15/16)
FIGURE 6A
Elevations
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
SOURCE: Gene Fong Associates, April 1, 2015
FIGURE 6B
Seabiscuit Pacifica Project
Specific Plan
Elevations
I:\CMG1301\Reports\SpecPlan\fig6ab_Elevations.cdr (09/15/16)
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
13
Table A: Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan Land Uses
Specific Plan Land Uses
Rooms/
Spaces
Floor Area
(square feet)
Building Area1
(square feet)
Percent
of Site
Phase I (hotels)
Residence Inn 121 93,895 22,745 9
Fairfield Inn and Suites 89 48,425 12,395 5
Santa Anita Inn
(existing - temporary)
63
22,050 11,025 4
Subtotal 273 164,370 46,165 18
Phase II
Mixed Use/Condominiums2 50 115,269 13,524 5
Subtotal 50 115,269 13,524 5
Parking Needed -- -- --
Hotel (1/room x 210 rooms) 210 -- -- --
Condos (2.5/unit x 50 units) 125 -- -- --
Office/Retail ((5/1000 SF) 33 -- -- --
Subtotal 368 -- -- --
Parking Provided
Surface Parking Phase I 197
— — —
Underground Parking Phase II 73
-- — —
Surface Parking Phase II 98
— — —
Subtotal 368
— — —
Development Total
Dual Hotels 210 142,320 35,140 14
Mixed Use (Office/Retail) - 6,762 13,524 5
Condominiums 50 108,507 13,524 5
Total Rooms 260 -- -- --
Total Floor Area - 257,589 48,664 19
Total Non-Residential Floor Area - 149,082
Total Parking Spaces 368 --
— —
FAR3 (without condos) --
0.58:1 — —
Source: Table 2.B, Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan, Gene Fong Associates (September 2016)
1 Building footprint
2 includes 6,762 square feet of offices on first floor, condos on 2nd floor and up.
3 Floor Area Ratio = Building Area (in square feet). Site Area (approx. 257,619 square feet or 5.9 acres with the 100:1
Club property included). Data extrapolated from ALTA survey and County Assessor’s Parcel data
NOTE: Per General Plan, FAR is for non-residential uses and does not include any square footage for
residential (condo) units. Residential density max. is 30 units/acre.
The primary access point for the hotels will be at the merger of Colorado Place and West
Huntington Drive. Primary access to the condominiums tower will be off of West
Huntington Drive. A driveway off of East Huntington Drive will serve as a
secondary/emergency access point for both the condominium and dual hotel. During
construction of Phase 1, only buildings A and B of the existing “Santa Anita Inn” hotel
will be demolished (Buildings A and B with 47 rooms), while the remaining buildings will
stay in operation (63 of the 110 rooms). The remaining buildings will be demolished with
Phase 2 construction.
The Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan No. SP 13-02 was submitted to the City to define
the range of permitted uses, development regulations and design guidelines for the
development of the project site. The Specific Plan document indicates it will accomplish
the following objectives:
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
14
• Provide high quality development consistent with the City’s General Plan and in
conformance with municipal standards, codes, and policies;
• Provide uses that will compliment and support the Santa Anita Park race track
and other important regional facilities in the City, and the current downtown
revitalization community district;
• Design the development to minimize the potential for environmental impacts;
• Augment the City’s economic base by increasing tax-generating commercial uses
within the City; and
• Create employment-generating opportunities for the citizens of the City and
surrounding communities.
Proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The applicant is requesting to amend the SPSP
to remove the “hotel” condominium designation in the plan. The applicant has indicated
that the condominium concept cannot be effectively financed at present. The SPSP
would also be amended to show ground floor office uses on 50% of the floor area of the
condominium tower building to be consistent with the General Plan requirements for the
Downtown Mixed Use category (see below).
General Plan Amendment. In support of the SPA, the applicant is requesting a
General Plan Amendment from the existing Commercial (0.5 FAR) with Downtown
Overlay to Downtown Mixed Use (50 du/ac and 1.0 FAR). This GPA is proposed to allow
standard residential condominiums on the site (separate condo tower shown as Phase 2
in the SPSP). As with the current approved project, the exiting hotel use (Santa Anita
Inn) would be fully removed by the start of Phase 2 (condominiums). The current
approval allows for limited operation (i.e., temporary continuation of approximately half
of the Santa Anita Inn) until the start of Phase 2 construction. In addition, the site
already has a Downtown Height Overlay (H-8) that will allow heights consistent with the
approved SPSP (max. 98 feet).
The current proposal also incorporates the small lot at the corner of Huntington Drive
and Colorado Place to improve visibility and allow for a more comprehensive site plan
since the 100 to 1 Bar has already been removed. It is proposed to change the General
Plan designation on this small parcel to DMU as well to better integrate it into the SPSP
site plan, and that it will be used exclusively for landscaping as a project entry with no
development square footage.
Zone Change. In support of the SPA, the applicant is also requesting a zone change
from the existing General Commercial (C-2) to Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) to also allow
for full residential uses as outlined above. The new proposal would eliminate the current
proposed Development Agreement.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
15
2.3 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS
The project applicant has applied for or will need the following discretionary approvals
from the City relative to this project:
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan Amendment No. SPA 16-05;
General Plan Amendment No. GPA 16-04;
Revised Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with CEQA;
Conceptual Review of the overall project site plan and visual renderings; and
Review of landscape and irrigation plans.
Other non-discretionary actions anticipated to be taken by the City at the Staff level as
part of the proposed project include:
Approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate site runoff
during construction (i.e., over the short-term) and a Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) to mitigate for post-construction runoff flows (i.e., over
the long-term during project occupancy and operation).
Building permit. The comprehensive building permit includes building permit,
plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits.
Grading permit.
Sewer connection permit.
Development of the proposed Seabiscuit Pacifica project may require the following
permits and/or approvals from other responsible agencies:
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Los Angeles Region to ensure that construction site drainage
velocities are equal to or less than the pre-construction conditions and downstream
water quality is not harmed.
IMPORTANT NOTE: In the following analysis, each environmental topic will be
evaluated by first describing the impacts of the original project (“Original SPSP
Analysis”) and then an analysis of the proposed changes to the project (“Proposed SPA
Analysis”).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
17
SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The most prominent scenic resources that can be viewed from
the project area are the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. There are no other unique vistas,
natural or undisturbed areas, or officially recognized scenic areas in the surrounding area. The
Santa Anita Park race track is just west of the project site, but it is not considered a visual
resource per se although the grandstands of the park are visual from surrounding land uses.
However, the race track is a designated historic district which is discussed in Section V., Cultural
Resources.
The project site contains the existing Santa Anita Inn, a collection of two-story buildings with
extensive mature landscaping. At present, the hotel and landscaping do not generally block
views of the San Gabriel Mountains for drivers heading northbound on East and West
Huntington Drives. The existing hotel buildings also do not block views of the mountains from
City Hall or surrounding public facilities, but views are partially blocked by the tall redwood trees
in the center of the existing hotel property, and to some degree by tall trees along the northern
boundary of the City Hall athletic fields north of City Hall. There are approximately 45 redwood
trees on site with about half of which are part of a windrow on the eastern boundary of the site.
The proposed SPSP project would construct one six-story and two eight-story buildings on the
site that would temporarily block views of the mountains for northbound travelers on either East
or West Huntington Drive. At 35 miles per hour, the time of view obstruction would be
approximately five seconds.
The proposed project may also block views of the mountains from public facilities and
residential areas south of the project site. When viewed from a vantage point of a two-story
house south of the golf course and west of Arcadia High School, approximately 3 degrees or 2.2
percent of the existing viewshed (approximately 135 degrees) to the north. Therefore, only a
small portion of the permanent view of the mountains from these areas would be blocked by
the proposed project. A similar percentage of the viewshed from City Hall would also be
blocked by the project buildings. The remainder of the residential and public views south of the
project would remain unimpeded. Views of the mountains from the Civic Center Athletic Fields
(north of City Hall) would be almost entirely blocked by the proposed project. However, these
views are already somewhat obscured by tall trees along the north side of the athletic field
property, and individuals using the athletic fields would be present for limited periods of time,
so the project would only result in temporary or short-term visual impacts for this area. There is
also a 12-foot tall chain link fence with fabric screening and landscaped vines covering most of
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
18
the fence along the southern boundary of the site (i.e., north boundary of the athletic fields)
that will remain after the completion of the project.
The Arcadia County Park is located directly east of the proposed project site and its primary
viewshed is the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. The proposed project is not expected to
block or eliminate these views for persons using the park or the Santa Anita Golf Course which
is located directly south of the Arcadia County Park. In addition, mature trees located in the
park and redwood trees located along the eastern boundary of the project site will help soften
views of the new dual hotel and condominiums.
The height the three proposed buildings will make them visible throughout much of the City of
Arcadia, however, the buildings are not expected to significantly block views of the San Gabriel
Mountains for the general public. The proposed project will not substantially block any views
from residential land uses. Based on this analysis, the project is not expected to result in
substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas, so impacts to public views would be less than
significant.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA, GPA, and ZC will not affect the height or
appearance of the proposed buildings under the SPSP, so impacts to views are the same as
those identified in the previous Initial Study (i.e., less than significant).
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site or surrounding area do not contain any
designated scenic highways. The nearest designated State scenic highway is the Angeles Crest
Highway approximately 15 miles away. Based on these conditions, the project will not
significantly damage scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings
within a state scenic highway.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA, GPA, and ZC will have the same effect as the
original SPSP project. Therefore, impacts are the same as identified in the previous Initial Study
(i.e., no impact).
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The project proposes to demolish the existing 2-story hotel
buildings and construct three hotel-related buildings with heights of 60, 80, and 86 feet. During
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
19
construction, persons travelling on area roads, using nearby land uses, and staying in the
existing hotel while it is still open would have views of the project site in various stages of site
preparation and construction. The proposed project will adhere to the City’s standard screened
construction fencing requirement, and due to construction and fencing being temporary the
impact is considered temporary and less than significant. In addition, the current hotel will be
demolished, so impacts to hotel guests’ views would be temporary and less than significant.
The proposed project will be taller and not to scale with existing office and hospital buildings
within the immediate area. However, the zoning of the site includes a height allowance (8
stories or 95 feet) under which the proposed project would be consistent. The City allowed this
special height limit for this property to provide a “landmark” project just east of the race track
that would provide a visual focal point or entry statement into the City along Colorado
Boulevard. Therefore, the project is not expected to detract from the planned visual quality of
the immediate neighborhood, or from any residential neighborhoods to the distance from the
project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not significantly degrade the existing visual
character or affect the visual quality of the site and its surroundings over the long term.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA, GPA, and ZC will not affect the height or
appearance of the proposed buildings under the SPSP, so impacts to visual character are the
same as those identified in the previous Initial Study (i.e., less than significant).
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I.d) Original SPSP Analysis. The existing hotel buildings do not cause a substantial amount
of glare at present due to the extensive landscaping present onsite. At certain times of day,
glare can occur from the sun shining off of the windows of nearby office buildings and the
hospital, especially in the morning and late afternoon hours.
The SPSP project proposes dual hotel and condominium buildings that will substantially increase
the amount of night lighting such as parking lights and streets lights over the lighting levels of
the existing hotel buildings. However, the project site is directly east of Santa Anita Park (i.e.,
horseracing track), which produces a substantially greater amount of night light during its
nighttime events compared to the existing hotel or the proposed project due to its large parking
lot lighting and stadium lighting. The other substantial source of night lighting in the area is the
field lighting of the Civic Center Athletic Fields immediately south of the project site. The
proposed project will also be required to be consistent with State Building Code (i.e., Title 24)
and City Municipal Code lighting requirements. For more information on exterior lighting and its
controls related to energy efficiency, see Section VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Due to their
height, the project buildings will be able to be seen at night from much of the City, but the
renderings of the project indicate they will be aesthetically pleasing, even at night, so they are
not expected to cause significant adverse impacts on nighttime views.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
20
The new hotel and condominium buildings will introduce tall buildings into the area with
hundreds of glass windows which would need to have glazing or coatings to help minimize glare
in the surrounding area and on nearby roadways, therefore, mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
AES-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all
project windows are glazed or otherwise treated to minimize glare on
surrounding roads and properties, to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director or designee.
In summary, the proposed hotel buildings will increase ambient lighting levels and glare from
the project site, and will change night time views of the area. However, these changes are not
expected to result in significant adverse impacts to nighttime views in the area mainly due to
visual conditions that already exist in the project area and implementation of the recommended
mitigation measure.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will not change the appearance, height, or overall
design of the project buildings, including lighting. With implementation of MM AES-1, the
proposed SPA will have the same impacts as those identified for the original project (i.e., less
than significant with mitigation).
II. AGRICULTURE 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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The site is almost completely covered over at present by
impervious man-made surfaces. According to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP) maps, the project site is designated as “Urban Land” and is not underlain by any Prime
Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, so there will be no impact in
this regard.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
21
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will to have any effect on agricultural land so the
impact is the same as under the original project (i.e., no impact).
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.b) Original SPSP Analysis. There is no agricultural use zoning or Williamson Act contracts
in the City of Arcadia. Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will to have any effect on agricultural zoning or
Williamson Act contracts so the impact is the same as under the original project (i.e., no
impact).
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))?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The site is almost completely covered by man-made impervious
surfaces (e.g., buildings and parking lots) at present. The City of Arcadia has no timberland or
timberland production land, and has no property zoned for forest land. There is no farmland in
the City of Arcadia, so the project will not convert farmland to non-agricultural use, and there
are no impacts in this regard.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will to have any effect on forestland or forest
zoning so the impact is the same as under the original project (i.e., no impact).
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.d) Original SPSP Analysis. As outlined in II.c above, the proposed development will not
result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there
is no impact.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will have no impact on loss of forestland, so
impacts are the same as those for the original project (i.e.. no impact).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
22
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II.e) Original SPSP Analysis. As outlined in II.c above, there is no farmland in the City of
Arcadia. Therefore, the project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural use and there is
no impact.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will have no impact on loss of farmland, so
impacts are the same as those for the original project (i.e.. no impact).
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.a) Original SPSP Analysis. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) prepared a detailed assessment of
air quality impacts for the proposed project based on the project development characteristics
(LSA 2013)(Appendix B) and the project traffic impact analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates
2013)(Appendix G). The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the South Coast Air Basin
(Basin) sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin into compliance with all
federal and state air quality standards. Air quality in the Basin is regulated by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The AQMP control measures and related emission
reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario
derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with
local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects is
determined by demonstrating compliance with local land use plans and/or population
projections.
The proposed project involves the construction and occupancy of 257,589 square feet of dual
hotel and condominiums on 5.9 acres of land. The project would also involve the demolition of
an existing hotel, the Santa Anita Inn, with 34,775 square feet of buildings.
As outlined in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project uses are consistent with
the General Plan and zoning land use designations for the site. Since it is consistent with the
General Plan, the proposed project is consistent with the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) Guidelines and the SCAQMD Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the
applicable air quality plan, and there are no significant impacts in this regard.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
23
Proposed SPA Analysis. The General Plan and zoning were modified for the original project
to make them consistent with the SPSP. The proposed SPA is now requesting a GPA and zone
change to allow residential uses in what was previously identified as a commercial zone.
However, the SPA is requesting only those uses approved under the SPSP so it is generally
consistent with the AQMP, and the project will implement similar mitigation to that approved for
the original SPSP. Therefore, impacts relative to the AQMP are similar to the original SPSP (i.e.,
less than significant).
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The following analysis analyzes both short-term impacts
caused by construction activities and long-term impacts caused by occupancy and operation of
the project as proposed.
Short-Term Impacts
Grading and other construction activities would result in combustion emissions from heavy-duty
construction vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles transporting construction crews. Exhaust
emissions during these construction activities will vary daily as construction activity levels
change. The grading and demolition phases of construction represent the most intense
construction period during which daily emissions would be at their greatest level, based on the
potential amount of equipment and duration of use. The other construction phases would not
result in any greater construction emissions due to less equipment being used and shorter
construction duration. Construction-related impacts also include demolition of some of the
Santa Anita Inn buildings in Phase 1 and the remaining buildings in Phase 2, as well as
excavation for the subterranean parking in Phase 2.
Currently, the Basin is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Project
construction will be required to comply with regional fugitive dust reduction practices (SCAQMD
Rule 403) that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions. The purpose of SCAQMD
Rule 403 is to reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere resulting from man-
made fugitive dust sources. Among the requirements under this rule, fugitive dust must be
controlled so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond
the property line of the emission source. This is achieved by requiring actions to prevent,
reduce, or mitigate dust emissions. Adherence to Rule 403 is a standard requirement for any
construction activity occurring within the Basin. Adherence to Rule 403 can reduce fugitive dust
emissions by 50 percent or more. As depicted in Table B, construction emissions would not
exceed regional thresholds, so impacts are less than significant. However, the following
measure is recommended to help assure that air quality impacts during construction, especially
on the nearby Salvation Army facility, remain at less than significant levels:
AIR-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the general contractor for the project shall
prepare and file a Dust Control Plan with the City that complies with SCQAMD
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
24
Rule 403 and requires the following during excavation and construction as
appropriate:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’
specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for 10 days or more).
Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur will
be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain
at least 2 feet of freeboard (vertical space between the top of the load and
top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle
Code (CVC) Section 23114.
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main
road.
Control traffic speeds within the property to 15 mph or less.
AIR-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall require by
contract specifications that contractors shall utilize California Air Resources Board
(CARB) Tier II Certified equipment or better during the rough/mass grading
phase for rubber-tired dozers and scrapers. Contract specifications shall be
included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be
reviewed by the City.
AIR-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for each phase, the project
developer shall require by contract specifications that contractors shall place
construction equipment staging areas at least 200 feet away from sensitive
receptors. Contract specifications shall be included in the project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the City.
AIR-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, the project developer
shall require by contract specifications that contractors shall utilize power poles
or clean-fuel generators for electrical construction equipment. Contract
specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction documents,
which shall be reviewed by the City.
Long-Term Impacts
Long-term air pollutant emission impacts result from stationary sources and mobile sources
involving any project-related changes. The project would result in a net increase in the amount
of hotel lodging or seasonal residences of 222,814 square feet (257,589 new square feet minus
the 34,775 existing square feet). Thus the project would result in net increases in both
stationary and mobile source emissions. The stationary source emissions would come from the
use of consumer products, landscape equipment, general energy, and solid waste, while trip
generation factors were taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Eight Edition and the traffic
impact analysis prepared by for the proposed project by Kimley-Horn and Associates (Appendix
G). The long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project, calculated using
the CalEEMod 2011.1.1 model are shown in Table C. The air quality study shows that the
increase of all criteria pollutants as a result of the proposed project would be less than the
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
25
applicable SCAQMD daily emission thresholds. Therefore, project-related long-term air quality
impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Table B: Short-Term Construction Impacts
Construction
Activity/Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO SO2
Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
Demolition 5.9 56 42 0.054 5.8 2.6 1.3 2.5
Site Preparation 5.8 58 44 0.042 7.2 3.1 3.9 2.9
Grading 4.3 41 28 0.032 2.7 2.4 1.4 2.2
Building
Construction 11 41 45 0.07 2.6 2.4 0.7 2.3
Architectural
Coating 39 3.1 5.2 0.0086 0.44 0.25 0.12 0.25
Paving 2.9 2.8 4.9 0.0086 0.44 0.23 0.12 0.22
Peak Daily
Emissions 50 58 50 0.079 10 6.8
SCAQMD
Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Significant
Emissions? No No No No No No
Source: Table I, LSA August 2013
CO = carbon monoxide
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
Table C: Long-Term Operational Emissions
Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Hotel 12 8.0 29 0.076 4.7 1.4
Proposed Project
Area Sources 25 0.38 29 0.04 3.8 3.8
Energy Sources 0.13 1.2 0.9 0.007 0.089 0.089
Mobile Sources 21 18 71 0.18 12 3.4
Total Proposed Project 46 20 100 0.23 16 7.3
Increase from Project 34 12 71 0.154 11 5.9
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Source: Table K, LSA August 2013
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROC = reactive organic compound
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
26
Proposed SPA Analysis. The land uses of the proposed SPA are very similar to those of the
approved SPSP with the exception of having actual condominiums (rather than hotel condos)
and having half of the ground floor square footage of Phase 2 being office (i.e., ground floor
commercial required by the General Plan for mixed use zones). The original air quality study
used residential condominium as a worst case estimate for long-term air pollutants, but the
addition of the office uses would incrementally increase the project emissions as shown in the
revised Table C below:
Table C: Long-Term Operational Emissions (REVISED)
Source
Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day)
ROC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Existing Hotel 12 8.0 29 0.076 4.7 1.4
Original SPSP Project 46 20 100 0.23 16 7.3
Revised SPA 48 21 102 0.24 17 7.6
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55
Significant? No No No No No No
Sources: Table K, LSA August 2013 and Table C, Initial Study, 2014.
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
ROC = reactive organic compound
SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District
SOx = sulfur oxides
The Revised Table C indicates the SPA project will not have significant long-term air pollutant
emissions similar to the original SPSP.
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)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The majority of the project-related operational emissions
would be due to vehicle trips to and from the new project buildings. The previous Tables B and
C indicate that all emissions of criteria pollutants from the proposed project would be under the
applicable SCAQMD thresholds, therefore, no significant impacts would occur and no mitigation
is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. Construction-related emissions will be the same for the revised
project as indicated for the proposed project in Table B above. The Revised Table C above
shows that long-term air pollutant emissions form the revised project will be incrementally
higher, but still less than significant, compared to the original SPSP project analysis.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
27
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.d) Original SPSP Analysis. Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) represent the
maximum emissions from a project that would not result in an exceedance of the national or
state ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that
pollutant within the project source receptor area (SRA) and the distance to the nearest sensitive
receptor. For this project, the appropriate SRA is the East San Gabriel Valley according to the
project air quality analysis (LSA August 2013) included in Appendix B of this report.
Short-Term LST Impacts
As previously described, it is expected that construction would occur in two phases, so no more
than 5 acres of the site would be actively worked on during any given day. Other than the one
Salvation Army facility at the southwest corner of the site, the closest sensitive receptors to the
site are residences located 1,000 feet north of the project site across Colorado Place. Table D
shows that emissions would not exceed LST thresholds and thus would not require mitigation.
Short-term emissions from the proposed project will cease once construction of the project is
completed, and implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-4 will help assure
that short-term emissions on nearby sensitive receptors will remain at less than significant
levels.
Long-Term LST Analysis
Table L of the Air Quality Analysis shows the calculated emissions for the proposed operational
activities compared with the appropriate LSTs, which only includes on-site sources; however,
the CalEEMod 2011.1.1 model outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile
sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table L include all on-
site project-related stationary sources and 5 percent of the project-related new mobile sources,
which is an estimate of the amount of project-related new vehicle traffic that will occur on site.
Considering the total trip length included in the CalEEMod 2011.1.1 model, the 5 percent
assumption is conservative. Table E shows that the operational emission rates would not exceed
the LST thresholds for the closest sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed operational
activity would not result in a localized significant air quality impact and no mitigation is required.
Table D: Construction LST Impacts (pounds per day)
Emissions Sources NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-site Emissions 58 43 10.2 6.8
LST Thresholds1 203 1,733 148 63
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: Table J, LSA August 2013.
1 LST Assumptions: SRA = East San Gabriel Valley, site disturbance = 5 acres, 80-foot
distance for workers and 1,000-foot distance for residents
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
28
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
LST = local significance threshold
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Table E: Long-Term Operational LST numbers (pounds per day)
Emissions sources NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Onsite emissions 1.3 33 4.4 4.0
LST Thresholds1 203 1,733 36 16
Significant Emissions? No No No No
Source: Table L, LSA August 2013.
1 LST Assumptions: SRA = East San Gabriel Valley, 80-foot distance for workers
and 1,000-foot distance for residents, onsite traffic = 5 percent of total
CO = carbon monoxide
lbs/day = pounds per day
NOX = nitrogen oxides
PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
Proposed SPA Analysis. There are no LST parameters that will change under the proposed
SPA compared to the approved SPSP, so impacts would be the same as those identified for the
original project (i.e., less than significant).
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III.e) Original SPSP Analysis. Project construction will generate limited odors over the
short-term, mainly fumes from gasoline- and diesel-powered construction equipment. These
odors would be temporary and not likely to be noticeable beyond the project limits. The
painting of buildings or the installation of asphalt surfaces may also create odors. SCAQMD Rule
1113 outlines standards for paint applications, while Rule 1108 identifies standards regarding
the application of asphalt. Adherence to the standards identified in these SCAQMD Rules would
reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level, and no mitigation is required.
Land uses generally associated with long-term objectionable odors include agricultural uses,
wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting operations,
refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding facilities. The proposed project does not
include uses that would generate long-term objectionable odors. Because the project would not
involve any substantial short-term or long-term sources of odors, impacts are considered less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed changes are the same as the original project
regarding odors, so impacts would be the same as those identified for the original project (i.e.,
less than significant).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
29
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site is located on an urban infill site that
contains no native vegetation and supports limited wildlife species, mainly those that are
tolerant of regular human activity including ground squirrels, rodents, and song birds such as
meadowlarks, finches, chickadees, and mockingbirds. The existing hotel landscaping on the
project site includes rose gardens, man-made waterfalls, ornamental bushes and trees, and a
windrow of mainly redwood trees adjacent to Huntington East Drive and the Arcadia County
Park on the east side of the project site. The project developer is planning on preserving the
windrow of redwood trees on the project site. There are approximately 100 other trees on the
rest of project site, mainly ornamental varieties, including sycamore, palm, and weeping willow.
These trees are mature and may provide roosting but likely not nesting opportunities for raptors
and other birds due to the constant level of human disturbance. Migratory and raptorial birds
are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and may be impacted by project construction if
birds or nests are present during grading or tree removal. In addition, redwood trees are not
listed or otherwise protected species, but they do constitute a relatively unique biological
resource in this area and as such should be preserved if possible. It should be noted that,
during Phase 1 construction, the southern portion of the existing Santa Anita Inn and its
associated mature landscaping, will remain in place until the start of Phase 2 construction. In
addition, the City’s development guidelines for commercial uses encourage the preservation of
mature trees. Potential impacts to the existing trees and nesting birds are considered potentially
significant and require mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase, the developer shall provide
an assessment of existing trees on the areas to be developed. This tree
assessment shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and identify any
existing large bushes or trees that can be relocated or preserved as part of the
new development project. The project landscaping plans shall attempt to
preserve existing mature trees onsite to the extent feasible, based on the tree
assessment. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Division.
BIO-2 During project construction in either phase, the existing redwood trees along the
east side of the property shall be protected by being taped or roped off with
appropriate signage so construction equipment will not accidentally come in
contact with and damage or destroy any trees. The trees shall be sprayed with
water at the end of each day when substantial amounts of dust are generated
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
30
(e.g., during grading or demolition) to minimize damage from dust deposition.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Division.
BIO-3 Construction in either phase should not occur during the local nesting season
(estimated February 1 to July 15). If any construction occurs during the nesting
season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to
the issuance of a grading permit or removal of any large trees on the existing
hotel property. If the biologist determines that nesting birds are present, an area
of 100 feet shall be marked off around the nest and no construction activity can
occur in that area during nesting activities. Grading and/or construction may
resume in this area when a qualified biologist has determined the nest is no
longer occupied and all juveniles have fledged. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, no significant impacts on
biological resources are expected to occur from project implementation.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed changes are the same as the original project
regarding biological resources as the entire site will be developed, so impacts would be the
same as those identified for the original project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site does not contain any designated riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities. The site is completely developed with man-made
improvements and landscaping, and does not contain any natural drainages or riparian
vegetation. Therefore, there are no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed changes are the same as the original project
regarding riparian habitat as the entire site will be developed, so impacts would be the same as
those identified for the original project (i.e., no impact).
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
31
IV.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site and immediate surrounding area are completely
developed with man-made improvements and do not contain any natural drainages, federally
protected wetlands, or any biological resources that would be under the jurisdiction of federal
or state resource agencies. Therefore, there are no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is
required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed changes are the same as the original project
regarding wetlands and the entire site will be developed, so impacts would be the same as
those identified for the original project (i.e., no impact).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.d) There are no known native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species within the City of
Arcadia. The site also does not contain any vegetation other than a few landscaped ornamental
trees, which provide minimal biological resource value. The site does not contain any drainage
features that would support fish or other wildlife, nor does it contain any resources that would
assist any species that are migrating or native wildlife raising their young. Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 through BIO-3 address impacts to the onsite trees and nesting birds (under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act) if present. With implementation of these measures, there will be no significant
impacts in this regard, and no additional mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed changes are the same as the original project
regarding these resources as the entire site will be developed, so impacts would be the same as
those identified for the original project (i.e., no impact) with mitigation from other sections
included.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The City of Arcadia does have an Oak Tree Preservation
ordinance. However, there are no oak trees on the proposed project site, so the SPSP project
will not conflict with this or any other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Since there are no impacts, no mitigation is required. See Mitigation Measure BIO-2 regarding
preservation of onsite redwood trees.
Proposed SPA Analysis. Since the original project approval, the City has adopted a native
tree protection ordinance, so the proposed project will have to comply with those new
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
32
regulatory requirements, and nesting bird surveys are required during nesting periods. No
additional mitigation is required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.f) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is not covered by any adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan. Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation
is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding HCPs or
NCCPs as the original project, so there are no impacts in this regard.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The Santa Anita Inn, an existing 2-story hotel with 110 guest
rooms, is located on the project site. The hotel was built in 1955, and the State Office of
Historic Preservation recommends all structures over 50 years of age be surveyed for historical
significance prior to demolition. In August 2013, LSA Associates, Inc. conducted a cultural
assessment for historical resources of the hotel and the results are incorporated into this section
(Appendix C).
The Santa Anita Inn helped support Santa Anita Park by providing lodging for race track visitors
as well as other City guests over the years. The City of Arcadia incorporated in 1903, and Santa
Anita Park was built in its present location in 1934. The racetrack played and continues to play
an important role in the City of Arcadia’s economy, which is based on entertainment, sporting,
hospitality, and gambling opportunities. Other local historical resources in the immediate area
include the Methodist Hospital of Southern California built in 1957 a quarter mile south of the
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
33
project site, and the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden a mile west of the site
that opened to the public in 19482.
The Santa Anita Inn was built in 1955 almost 50 years after the creation of the Santa Anita
Park. The Inn was originally built to house Santa Anita Park workers, jockeys, and visiting
guests to the race track. In 1985, the hotel went through a major renovation and all interior
spaces were reconstructed or upgraded so that little if any of the original interior treatments or
furnishings remain. The building exteriors were also renovated at that time, but the overall
appearance and color scheme of the hotel were maintained. In addition, the hotel grounds
contain extensive mature landscaping which provides a very pleasant ambiance to the facility.
The historical assessment determined that the existing Santa Anita Inn property does not meet
the requirements of listing for either the State or National Register of Historic Places. In
addition, the City of Arcadia does not maintain a list of locally designated historical resources.
Nevertheless, the Santa Anita Inn does represent a connection to the City’s past, and its
character and contributions to the City’s history have been adequately documented in the
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523A and 523B forms filled out as part of
the LSA historical assessment (see Appendix C). This documentation needs to be filed with the
City to assure there will be no significant impacts to local historical resources (see Mitigation
Measure CUL-1).
The proposed dual hotels and condominiums will continue to supply seasonal housing for Santa
Anita Park management, workers, jockeys, and guests, as well as other visitors to the City. This
is an increasingly important role in the local economy since Hollywood Park has publicly
announced its plan to close. Due to the closure of Hollywood Park, the Santa Anita Park race
season will likely increase from five to seven months long. In addition, the proposed project
would also be consistent with the City’s General Plan and appears to be consistent with its
recently adopted downtown revitalization plan.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Prior to demolition of any existing hotel buildings on the site, the completed DPR
523A forms and a cover memorandum shall be submitted to the City for filing to
officially document the historical assessment for the Santa Anita Inn. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.
CUL-2 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for Phase 1, the applicant shall install a
monument plaque indicating the location of the former Santa Anita Inn and its
importance in the history of the City of Arcadia. The size, construction, and
2 http://www.santaanita.com/the-park/history
http://www.ci.arcadia.ca.us/home/index.asp?page=1102
http://www.methodisthospital.org/ABOUTUS/Pages/History.aspx
http://www.arboretum.org/index.php/explore/our_history/
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
34
location of this plaque shall be up to the discretion of the City Manager, in
consultation with the Planning Division.
CUL-3 If cultural artifacts are discovered during project grading, work shall be halted in
that area until a qualified historian or archaeologist can be retained by the
developer to assess the significance of the find. The project cultural monitor shall
observe the remaining earthmoving activities at the project site consistent with
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), (c), and (d). The monitor shall be
equipped to record and salvage cultural resources that may be unearthed during
grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert
grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources.
If any resources of a prehistoric or Native American origin are discovered, the
appropriate Native American tribal representative will be contacted and invited to
observe the monitoring program for the duration of the grading phase at tribal
expense. Any Native American resources shall be evaluated in accordance with
the CEQA Guidelines and either reburied at the project site or curated at an
accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading activities have
ceased or the cultural monitor determines that monitoring is no longer
necessary, such activities shall be discontinued. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division.
Implementation of these measures will assure there will be no significant impacts to any
existing or undiscovered historical or archaeological resources.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding cultural
resources, and with the recommended mitigation, impacts would be the same as with the
original project (i.e., less than significant but mitigation recommended for impacts to local
historical structures).
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site has been completely disturbed by previous
development and human activity. Development of the proposed project is not expected to cause
any significant impacts to archaeological resources on the site. However, it is still possible,
though unlikely, that archaeological resources may be found during excavation of the project
site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-3 will help assure that impacts to unanticipated
archaeological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding
archaeological resources, and with the recommended mitigation, impacts would be the same as
with the original project (i.e., less than significant but mitigation recommended for impacts to
local historical structures).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
35
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site has been extensively disturbed in the past,
and is currently covered with man-made structures and improvements. The project geotechnical
report (Geo Inc. 2013) indicates that the entire area is underlain by hundreds of feet of alluvial
(stream-deposited) materials, so it is unlikely that fossil-bearing geologic strata will be disturbed
during project grading. However, it is possible, though not likely, that megafaunal (ancient large
mammal) or related paleontological resources may be found during excavation of the project
site, since such resources have been occasionally found during excavations elsewhere in the LA
Basin. To prevent impacts to unanticipated paleontological resources, mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-4 If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during project grading, work
will be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can be retained to
assess the significance of the find. The project paleontologist shall monitor
remaining earthmoving activities at the project site and shall be equipped to
record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed during grading
activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert
grading equipment to allow recording and removal of the unearthed resources.
Any fossils found shall be evaluated in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and
offered for curation at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia.
Once grading activities have ceased or the paleontologist determines that
monitoring is no longer necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued.
This measure may be combined with CUL-3 at the discretion of the City Planning
Division.
Implementation of this measure will help assure there will be no significant impacts to
unexpected paleontological resources or unique geological features from project construction.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding
paleontological resources, and with the recommended mitigation, impacts would be the same
as with the original project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
36
IV.d) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site does not contain any known human
remains. However, there is always a small possibility that ground-disturbing activities during
construction may uncover previously unknown buried human remains. Therefore, the following
mitigation is recommended:
Mitigation Measures
CUL-5 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,
California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings
as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC § 5097.98. If
human remains are found, the LA County Coroner’s office shall be contacted to
determine if the remains are recent or of Native American significance. Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall include a note to this effect on
the grading plans for the project.
Implementation of this measure will help assure there will be no significant impacts if human
remains are found during project grading.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding human
remains, and with the recommended mitigation, impacts would be the same as with the original
project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
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.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
37
ii) Strong seismic groundshaking?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
iv) Landslides?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.a.i-iv) Original SPSP Analysis. The Raymond Hill Fault Zone and the Sierra Madre Fault
Zone are the only faults located in the City of Arcadia. The project study area is underlined by
extremely thick alluvial deposits that are subject to differential settlement during any intense
shaking associated with seismic events, which can be expected for any location in Southern
California. This can result in damage to property when an area settles to different degrees over
a relatively short distance. Almost the entire region is subject to this hazard, but building design
standards do significantly reduce the potential for harm. The proposed project site is not
located within the boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard as defined
by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (CGS 2005)(Appendix D), there are
no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the project site, and the site is not
located in an area with steep or unstable slopes (City General Plan 1995). In addition, local
groundwater is found at depths well in excess of 50 feet, so the potential for liquefaction is
considered low. As part of its development review process, the City will require the project to be
built to withstand expected seismic groundshaking, as well as local soil conditions as outlined in
the project geotechnical study (CGS 2005). Therefore, the project site is not expected to be
subject to any significant impacts regarding fault zones, strong seismic groundshaking, ground
failure, liquefaction, or landslides, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding faults and
seismic impacts, and impacts would be the same as with the original project (i.e., less than
significant or no impact).
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
38
VI.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site gently slopes to the south at a
gradient of 2.4 percent with elevations ranging from 473 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at
the north corner sloping down to 466 feet amsl at the south corner. The site is currently
covered over by buildings and mainly impervious surfaces and does not exhibit signs of erosion.
Excavation and grading for the proposed project would temporarily expose some onsite soils to
erosion from wind or water. However, the City will apply its standard erosion control measures
as conditions of approval, so these potential impacts would be less than significant.
Development of the site would involve more than one acre, therefore, the proposed project is
required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would also be required to address erosion and
discharge impacts associated with grading of the site for development of the proposed project.
The majority of the soils present on the site have at least a slight erosion hazard potential, so
the proposed project is required to adhere to the City’s grading requirements, obtain an NPDES
permit, prepare a Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP), and prepare an
SWPPP. These actions are outlined in Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3 in
Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality. Compliance with these measures will reduce potential
impacts associated with soil erosion hazards to less than significant levels.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding soil erosion
so impacts would be the same as with the original project (i.e., less than significant with
mitigation).
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.c) Original SPSP Analysis. Subsidence is the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling
of the earth’s surface with little or no horizontal movement. Subsidence is caused by a variety
of activities, which includes, but is not limited to, withdrawal of groundwater, pumping of oil
and gas from underground, the collapse of underground mines, liquefaction, and
hydrocompaction. However, the City of Arcadia is located on an alluvial plain that is relatively
flat and expected to be stable. The project site is also a flat site and will not be subject to
either onsite or offsite landslide hazards (CGS 2005). There will be no significant impacts in this
regard, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding geologic
stability so impacts would be the same as with the original project (i.e., no impact).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
39
VI.d) Original SPSP Analysis. Expansive soils generally have a substantial amount of clay
particles, which can give up water (shrink) or absorb water (swell). The change in the volume
exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The extent or range of the
shrink/swell is influenced by the amount and kind of clay present in the soil. The occurrence of
these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. Expansive soils can
be widely dispersed and they can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins. The
proposed project site and surrounding area are underlain by deep well-drained alluvial soils that
have low to moderate expansion potential. With implementation of the building
recommendations in the project geotechnical study (Appendix D), the project will have no
substantial risks to life or property related to expansive soils, Impacts in this regard will be less
than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same conditions regarding expansive
soils so impacts would be the same as with the original project (i.e., no impact).
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI.e) The proposed project would be connected to the existing sewer system, so no septic or
alternative wastewater disposal systems are needed. Therefore, there will be no significant
impacts in this regard.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
a) Generate gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) prepared a detailed assessment of
air quality impacts including greenhouse gas emission impacts for the proposed project based
on the project development characteristics (LSA 2013)(Appendix B) and the project traffic
impact analysis (Kimley-Horn and Associates 2013)(Appendix G).
During the construction of the project, expected equipment and vehicles will generate
greenhouse gases in small amounts. There currently are no identified thresholds for greenhouse
gas emissions. This section provides an analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated
with the proposed project. This analysis examines the short-term construction and long-term
operational impacts of the proposed project as it relates to greenhouse gases. A detailed
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
40
assessment of project-related GHG emissions is included in the project’s air quality study
(Appendix B).
Project-related emissions of GHGs have been modeled by including direct emissions from
project vehicular traffic. Indirect emissions from electric power plants generating electricity,
energy used to provide water, and the processing of solid waste were accounted for taking into
account the nature of the project. The project would utilize quantifiable amounts of electricity,
natural gas, water and generate solid waste that will contribute CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions.
The emissions of GHG resulting have been estimated using parameters from both the State of
California and the federal government.
Calculation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project’s GHG emissions during construction and mobile sources during project operation
were estimated by using the CalEEMod 2011.1.1 computer model developed and maintained by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The project’s GHG emissions from
on-site equipment were estimated using the emission factors found on the SCAQMD website.
The CalEEMod 2011.1.1 program estimates that the project would generate 644 pounds per day
or a total of 885 metric tons of CO2e GHGs during construction, as shown in Table F below. By
comparison, the proposed project’s long-term total unmitigated carbon dioxide equivalents for
carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide would be 3,700 metric tons of CO2e per year or
0.0037 MMTCO2e/year, as shown in Table G below. The carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous
oxide emissions that would be associated with the proposed project is less than 0.0000075
percent of California’s total emissions for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (469.95
Tg CO2e). According to the Air Quality Analysis, GHG emissions of 3,700 tpy of CO2e from the
proposed project expansion would be lower than the SCAQMD interim tiered GHG emissions
threshold for commercial projects of 1,400 tpy of CO2e, and would be below the 25,000 MT of
CO2e/yr of residual emissions.
Table F: Short-Term Construction GHG Emissions
Construction Phase
Total Regional Pollutant Emissions
(metric tons per year)
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Demolition 51 0.010 0 51
Site Preparation 20 0.0056 0 20
Grading 30 0.0086 0 31
Building Construction 642 0.082 0 644
Architectural Coating 46 0.0042 0 46
Paving 23 0.0064 0 23
Source: Table M, LSA August 2013
CH4 = methane
CO2 = carbon dioxide
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
N2O = nitrous oxide
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
41
Table G: Long-Term Operational Project GHG Emissions
Source
Pollutant Emissions (metric tons per year)
Bio-
CO2
NBio-
CO2
Total
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Construction emissions
amortized over 30 years 0 29 29 0.0042 0 29
Operational emissions
Area 5.3 11 16 0.017 0.00036 17
Energy 0 1,200 1,200 0.028 0.0091 1,200
Mobile 0 2,300 2,300 0.092 0 2,300
Waste 28 0 28 1.7 0 63
Water 2.7 79 82 0.28 0.007 90
Total Project
Emissions 36 3,600 3,700 2.1 0.016 3,700
Source: Table N, LSA August 2013
Note: Numbers in table may not add up correctly due to rounding of all numbers to two significant digits.
Bio-CO2 = biologically generated CO2 CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
CH4 = methane N2O = nitrous oxide
CO2 = carbon dioxide NBio-CO2 = Non-biologically generated CO2
The project air quality study concluded that the proposed SPSP project would be consistent with
currently accepted state GHG strategies if it implemented the following mitigation:
Mitigation Measures
GHG-1 To ensure reductions below the expected “Business As Usual” (BAU) scenario,
the project will implement a variety of measures that will reduce its greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. To the extent feasible, and to the satisfaction of the City of
Arcadia (City), the following measures will be incorporated into the design and
construction of the SPSP project prior to the issuance of building permits:
Construction and Building Materials
Recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the demolished and/or grubbed construction
materials (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal,
and cardboard).
Use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are resource-
efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way,
for at least 10 percent of the project.
Energy Efficiency Measures
Design all project buildings to exceed the 2013 California Building Code’s (CBC)
Title 24 energy standard by 10 percent, including, but not limited to, any
combination of the following:
Design buildings to accommodate future solar installations.
Limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling
distribution system to minimize energy consumption.
Incorporate ENERGY STAR or better rated windows, space heating and cooling
equipment, light fixtures, appliances, or other applicable electrical equipment.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
42
Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral
part of the lighting systems in buildings.
Install light-colored roofs and pavement materials where possible.
Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment,
and control systems.
Install solar lights or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting or outdoor
lighting that meets the 2013 California Building and Energy Code.
Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project
and its location consistent with the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance
(WELO). The strategy may include the following, plus other innovative measures
that may be appropriate:
Create water-efficient landscapes within the development.
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based
irrigation controls.
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and
appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets, and waterless urinals.
Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to
nonvegetated surfaces) and control runoff.
Solid Waste Measures
To facilitate and encourage recycling to reduce landfill-associated emissions,
among others, the project will provide trash enclosures that include additional
enclosed area(s) for collection of recyclable materials. The recycling collection
area(s) will be located within, near, or adjacent to each trash and rubbish
disposal area. The recycling collection area will be a minimum of 50 percent of
the area provided for the trash/rubbish enclosure(s) or as approved by the waste
management department of the City of Arcadia.
Provide employee education on waste reduction and available recycling services.
Transportation Measures
To facilitate and encourage non-motorized transportation, bicycle racks shall be
provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
The bicycle racks shall be shown on project landscaping and improvement plans
submitted for Planning Department approval and shall be installed in accordance
with those plans.
Provide pedestrian walkways and connectivity throughout the project.
Fund or participate in some type of shuttle service for hotel guests to access the
City’s downtown Gold Line Station.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 and application of regulatory
requirements, the project would have GHG emissions below those expected for a BAU project
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
43
and would not conflict with or impede implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the
Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level
proposed by the Governor. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions
would be less than significant.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The procedures for estimating GHG emission impacts has been
changing in recent years, however, the proposed changes under the SPA would be only
incrementally different than those of the approved SPSP, and emission rates for residential
condominiums were already taken into account in the GHG emission estimates for the original
project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended for the
original project, the revised SPA would have equivalent impacts relative to GHGs (i.e., less than
significant with mitigation).
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The City of Arcadia has adopted policies under the City’s
General Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in compliance with SB 375 and AB 32, to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. The City’s website also discusses an Energy Efficiency Plan that was not available at the
time of this report. The SPSP project will be required to comply with these local GHG emission
control measures as well. With implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the proposed
SPSP will less than significant project and cumulative impacts related to GHGs and global
climate change.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The procedures for estimating GHG emission impacts have been
changing in recent years, however, the proposed changes under the SPA would be only
incrementally different than those of the approved SPSP, and emission rates for residential
condominiums were already taken into account in the GHG emission estimates for the original
project. Therefore, with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended for the
original project, the revised SPA would have equivalent impacts relative to GHGs (i.e., less than
significant with mitigation) compared to the original approval.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
44
VIII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The site currently contains an existing hotel, and Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site (RJL Associates March 20103)
indicates that the site does not contain any hazardous materials or facilities. In addition, there
are only a few sites in the surrounding area that store or handle hazardous materials, and none
of them would have any effect or impact on the project site or the proposed SPSP project (RJL
2003)(Appendix E). The project proposes to develop two new hotels and condominiums that
are not expected to use or generate substantial or significant amounts of hazardous materials.
There would be an incremental impact in this regard from these expanded lodging-related uses,
but compliance with existing federal, state, and local laws/regulations regarding hazardous
materials should help ensure that these impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is
required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The onsite and regulatory conditions for hazardous materials would
be the same for the proposed SPA as for the approved SPSP, so there would be no impacts in
this regard.
VIII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site is located in Los Angeles County,
which is not among the counties that are found to have serpentine and ultramafic rock in their
soils. Therefore, the potential risk for naturally occurring asbestos is small. However, due to
the age of the existing Santa Anita Inn, it is very likely that asbestos-containing materials
(ACMs) and/or lead-based paint (LBP) are present on the project site at this time. Prior to
demolition, these materials will need to be removed by licensed personnel, as outlined in the
following mitigation:
Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1 Prior to demolition of any existing hotel buildings or associated structures, a
qualified contractor shall be retained to survey structures proposed for
demolition to determine if asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-
based paint (LBP) are present. If ACMs and/or LBP are present, prior to
commencement of general demolition, these materials shall be removed and
transported to an appropriate landfill by a licensed contractor. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Division including written
documentation of the disposal of any ACMs or LBP in conformance with all
applicable regulations.
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the proposed project will not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Proposed SPA Analysis. Removal of onsite improvements is required under the proposed SPA
just like under the approved SPSP. Therefore, impacts will be similar (i.e., less than significant
with mitigation).
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
45
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.c) Original SPSP Analysis. There is one school located within a quarter mile of the
project site - Barnhart School (Kindergarten through 8th grade). However, Section VIII.a above
indicates the proposed project would not emit or produce any hazardous materials that would
represent a health hazard to the public or to students or staff at Barnhart School. Therefore,
there would be no significant impact in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA has no onsite or area conditions regarding
schools that are different than those of the approved SPSP, so impacts will be the same (i.e.,
less than significant).
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.d) Original SPSP Analysis. There are no properties in the vicinity of the project site,
nor is the project site itself on any Federal Superfund Sites (NPL), State Response Sites,
Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, or Corrective Action sites lists.
Neither the project site nor the surrounding properties within one-quarter mile of the site are
identified on the California State Water Resources Control Board’s Geotracker list of leaking
underground fuel tank (LUFT) sites (2012). Therefore, there will be no impact in this regard and
no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site and it is
not on any governmental hazmat lists. Therefore, impacts will be the same (i.e., no impact).
e) For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site is not located within an airport
land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. There would not be
any airport-related safety hazards for people working at the proposed project site or guests of
the hotels or condominiums. Therefore, the project will have no impacts related to airport
activity, and no mitigation is required.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
46
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which is
not in the vicinity of an airport, so there are no impacts in that regard.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.f) Original SPSP Analysis. There are no private airstrips within 2 miles of the project
site, so there will be no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which is
not in the vicinity of a private airstrip, so there are no impacts in that regard.
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.g) Original SPSP Analysis. The Santa Anita Inn currently occupies the project site.
Police, fire, and paramedic services are currently provided by the City to the entire downtown
area, including the project site. The site is accessible via the merger of Colorado Place and West
Huntington Drive to the north and East Huntington Drive to the east. Development of the
project site as proposed will not reduce the existing level of emergency access or the ability to
evacuate onsite uses if an emergency or disaster occurs, so there will be no significant impacts
in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP with the administrative change from hotel to residential condos, and the
addition of a small amount of office space on the bottom floor of the condo tower in Phase 2.
Anticipated public service impacts of the proposed project are expected to be equivalent to
those of the approved SPSP project, so impacts are less than significant.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII.h) Original SPSP Analysis. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL Fire) mapping system the City of Arcadia contains areas considered to be Very
High Fire Hazards Zones. The map created by CAL Fire has been adopted by the City to target
these areas and implement stringent wild land fire mitigation strategies. The proposed project
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
47
site does not fall within any fire hazard zones, and is not within close proximity to any wildlands
and will not have a fire hazard impact. Review of proposed building plans is a standard part of
the City’s development review process, and the proposed project will be required to comply
with any building design requirements of the City Fire Department (see Section XIV, Public
Services) to mitigate urban (non-wildland) fire hazards. Therefore, wildfire hazard impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which is
not in a high fire hazard zone, so impacts in that regard will be the same as the original projet
(i.e. less than significant).
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.a) Original SPSP Analysis. In 1972, the Clean Water Act (CWA) was amended to require
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for the discharge of pollutants
into “Waters of the U.S.” from any point source. In 1987, the CWA was amended to require that
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency establish regulations for permitting under the NPDES
permit program, that at the local level cities must ensure provision of vegetates swales, buffers,
and infiltration areas in new development projects. For Arcadia, the NPDES program is issued
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. The NPDES program
coordinates the actions of all incorporated cities within this region (except Long Beach) and Los
Angeles County to regulate and control storm water and urban runoff into Los Angeles County
waterways and ocean. The proposed project will be subject to NPDES requirements as well as
the City of Arcadia’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO). Although this is a standard
regulatory requirement, it is incorporated into the project mitigation to allow for better tracking
through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will prepared for this
project.
Short-Term Impacts. It is possible that runoff during grading and construction activities
could result in sediment and other urban pollutants into local drainage facilities. To protect
water quality over the short-term (i.e., during construction), the project will be required to
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which is a written document that
describes the construction operator’s activities to comply with the requirements in the NPDES
permit. Required elements of an SWPPP include (1) site description addressing the elements
and characteristics specific to the project site; (2) descriptions of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for erosion and sediment controls; (3) BMPs for construction waste handling and
disposal; (4) implementation of approved local plans; and (5) proposed post-construction
controls, including a description of local post-construction erosion and sediment control
requirements. The SWPPP is intended to facilitate a process whereby the operator evaluates
potential pollutant sources at the site and selects and implements BMPs designed to prevent or
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
48
control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff.
During the construction period, the proposed project would use a series of BMPs to reduce
erosion and sedimentation. These measures may include the use of gravel bags, silt fences, hay
bales, check dams, hydroseed, and soil binders. The construction contractor would be required
to operate and maintain these controls throughout the duration of on-site construction
activities.
Long-Term Impacts. Once the proposed project is completed, it is possible that operation or
ongoing activities of project uses may contribute to long-term water quality impacts. To prevent
such impacts, the project must implement a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan
(SUSMP) is required of the proposed project. Onsite runoff will be either infiltrated into the
ground in landscaped areas or be directed to several catch basins and down drains which will
then direct runoff into the City’s storm drain system. New development is required to meet or
exceed pre-project conditions for stormwater discharge, and the proposed project would be
required to retain any additional runoff onsite and discharge it to the storm drain system at
rates that do not exceed pre-project conditions.
Adherence to NPDES requirements is required of all development within the City, the
incorporation of these requirements in the following measures is designed to track both
standard requirements and specific mitigation measures as identified below:
Mitigation Measures
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a Notice of Intent
(NOI) with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to be covered
under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction
activities. The project developer shall submit to the City the Waste Discharge
Identification Number issued by the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB)
as proof that the project’s NOI is to be covered by the General Construction
Permit has been filed with the SWQCB. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
HYD-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and receive approval for
a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP
shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan citing specific
measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the entire grading and
construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall emphasize structural and
nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) to control sediment and non-
visible discharges from the site. BMPs to be implemented may include (but shall
not be limited to) the following:
Potential sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the
following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary debris
basin (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices. The
construction and condition of the BMPs are to be periodically inspected by
the RWQCB during construction, and repairs would be made as required.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
49
Area drains within the construction area must be provided with inlet
protection. Minimum standards are sand bag barriers, or two layers of
sandbags with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed standpipes, or
other measures as appropriate.
Materials that have the potential to contribute non-visible pollutants to storm
water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be placed in temporary
storage containment areas.
All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be
controlled to eliminate discharge from the site. Temporary soil stabilization
measures to be considered include: covering disturbed areas with mulch,
temporary seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or blankets, temporary
vegetation, and permanent seeding. Stockpiles shall be surrounded by silt
fences and covered with plastic tarps.
Implement good housekeeping practices such as creating a waste collection
area, putting lids on waste and material containers, and cleaning up spills
immediately.
The SWPPP shall include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the site
during the construction phase.
Additional required BMPs and erosion control measures shall be documented
in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP would be kept on site for the duration of project construction and
shall be available to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board for
inspection at any time.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for performing
and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the project-specific
SWPPP. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment control measures
called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports shall be maintained and available for
City inspection. An inspection log shall be maintained for the project and shall be
available at the site for review by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board as appropriate.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific Standard Urban Stormwater
Management Plan (SUSMP) shall be submitted to the City Planning Division for
review and approval. The SUSMP shall specifically identify the long-term site
design, source control, and treatment control BMPs that shall be used on site to
control pollutant runoff and to reduce impacts to water quality to the maximum
extent practicable. At a minimum, the SUSMP shall identify and the site
developer shall implement the following site design, source control, and
treatment control BMPs as appropriate:
Site Design BMPs
Minimize urban runoff by maximizing maximizing permeable areas and
minimizing impermeable areas (recommended minimum 25 percent of site to
be permeable).
Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
50
Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by planting native or
drought-tolerant trees and large shrubs wherever possible
Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel filtration pits
for low flow infiltration.
Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to increase opportunities
for infiltration consistent with vector control objectives.
Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths
necessary, provided that public safety and a walkable environment for
pedestrians are not compromised.
Direct runoff from impervious areas to treatment control BMPs such as
landscaping/bioretention areas.
Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs are implemented to eliminate the presence of pollutants
through prevention. Such measures can be both non-structural and structural:
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Education for property owners, tenants, occupants, and employees.
Activity restrictions.
Irrigation system and landscape maintenance to minimize water runoff.
Common area litter control.
Regular mechanical sweeping of private streets and parking lots.
Regular drainage facility inspection and maintenance.
Structural Source Control BMPs
MS4 stenciling and signage at storm down drains.
Properly design trash storage areas and any outdoor material storage areas.
Treatment Control BMPs
Treatment control BMPs supplement the pollution prevention and source control
measures by treating the water to remove pollutants before it is released from
the project site. The treatment control BMP strategy for the project is to select
Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs that promote infiltration and
evapotranspiration, including the construction of infiltration basins, bioretention
facilities, and extended detention basins. Where infiltration BMPs are not
appropriate, bioretention and/or biotreatment BMPs (including extended
detention basins, bioswales, and constructed wetlands) that provide opportunity
for evapotranspiration and incidental infiltration may be utilized. Harvest and use
BMPs (i.e., storage pods) may be used as a treatment control BMP to store
runoff for later non-potable uses.
With implementation of these measures, potential short- and long-term impacts of the proposed
project on local and regional water quality will be reduced to less than significant levels.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP with the administrative change from hotel to residential condos, and the
addition of a small amount of office space on the bottom floor of the condo tower in Phase 2.
None of these changes affect local runoff or water quality requirements, so impacts of the
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
51
proposed project in this regard are expected to be equivalent to those of the approved SPSP
project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project is subject to NPDES requirements and
will be designed and constructed to ensure compliance with the water quality standards and
waste discharge requirements. It should be noted that there is a 16-inch water main on the
west side of the site and a 12-inch water main on the east side of the site, both with 65 pounds
per square inch of static pressure (65 psi). It may be necessary that the booster pumps be
designed to provide sufficient pressure for the heights of the proposed buildings. Compliance
with these regulations, and implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3, along
with all City water supply requirements, will assure there will be no significant impacts related
to groundwater resulting from the proposed project.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. None of these changes would substantially affect local water or
wastewater services or groundwater. affect local runoff or water quality requirements, so
impacts of the proposed project in this regard are expected to be equivalent to those of the
approved SPSP project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
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 that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on site or off
site?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site slopes gently to the south at a
gradient of 2.4 percent with elevations ranging from 473 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at
the north corner sloping down to 466 feet amsl at the south corner. The proposed project site is
fully developed and landscaped and does not contain any natural drainage courses. There is
also no historical evidence of localized ponding or flooding on the project site. The proposed
project includes landscaping that will reduce the potential for erosion. Although the amount of
erosion or siltation onsite might incrementally increase as a result of development, there will be
no long-term significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through
HYD-3.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are the same site which has
no identified drainage channels or structures, and erosion can be controlled by implementation
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
52
of recommended mitigation. Therefore, impacts will be similar to those identified for the original
project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
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 that
would result in flooding on site or off site?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.d) Original SPSP Analysis. The site is already fully developed with structures and
impervious surfaces, so construction of the proposed project would not substantially increase
the amount of runoff from this site. There are no onsite drainage channels or features, and on-
site drainage flows and direction will remain essentially as they are at present. Surface runoff
flows from the northeast corner of the property through the southwest corner of the property
before draining into the City’s storm drain system in East Huntington Drive. The proposed
project would not have a significant impact on drainage patterns and will not substantially
increase the rate of amount of surface water runoff; therefore, no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The site is the same for both projects and the site under both
development scenarios will be fully developed, so impacts will be similar to those identified for
the proposed project (i.e., no impact).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The existing site is relatively flat and already developed with a
hotel, landscaping, and parking areas, and generally drains toward the south. There are no
surface drainage courses on the project site, but the East Branch Arcadia Wash is located
approximately 227 feet west of the site and the Arcadia Wash is located approximately 2,000
feet west of the site.
The proposed project would replace the existing hotel with new hotel and related lodging
facilities, landscaping, and parking areas. As outlined in the project hydrology study (Appendix
F), the proposed project will not create or contribute runoff in addition to that already
generated by the site, in compliance with the City’s flood control requirements, and adherence
to the above Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. None of the changes affect local runoff or water quality requirements,
so impacts of the proposed project in this regard are expected to be equivalent to those of the
approved SPSP project (i.e., less than significant).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
53
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.f) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project is in a developed urban setting and
through adherence to City water quality regulations and Mitigation Measures HYD-1
through HYD-3 would not substantially degrade water quality.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. None of the changes affect local runoff or water quality requirements,
so impacts of the proposed project in this regard are expected to be equivalent to those of the
approved SPSP project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation in other sections).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.g) Original SPSP Analysis. Most of the annual rainfall in the region occurs in the winter
with potential flooding occurring in the City from intense storms resulting in rapid runoff. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) identify
areas subject to flooding during the 100-year storm event. Note that the term “100-year” is a
measure of the size of the flood, not how often it occurs. The “100-year flood” is a flooding
event that has a one percent chance of occurring in any given year. Based on these FIRM maps
(map 06037c1400F), the project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. Because the
project site is not located within a floodplain, the proposed project would not impede or redirect
flood flows (FEMA 2011). In addition, the project hydrology study (Tritech Associates, Inc. July
2013)(Appendix F) indicates that the proposed project would not result in increased runoff from
the project site over existing volumes. Therefore, no impacts associated with this issue would
occur, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which is
not within a 100-year flood plain, so there are no impacts in that regard.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures that would impede or redirect flood
flows?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.h) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project site is not within a 100-year flood
hazard zone. Since the proposed project would not place structures that would impede or
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
54
redirect flood flows, there would be no impact in regards to this issue, and no mitigation is
required.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.i) Original SPSP Analysis. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not
cause or increase the likelihood of failure of a levee or dam that could result in flooding.
Although the project site is located within the flood hazard zone for Santa Anita Dam, which is
located along the Santa Anita Wash approximately 2 miles north of the project site, the
proposed project would not involve housing as part of the project. Additionally, the entire
community is in Zone D, which the City is not required to implement any flood plain
management regulation as a condition per the National Flood Insurance Program from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which
does not face risks regarding flooding, so there are no impacts in that regard.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX.j) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site does not have any enclosed bodies of water
(e.g., reservoir tank or pond) that could cause or result in a seiche (standing wave) during a
seismic event. The site is also not located near the Pacific Ocean or within a tsunami or
mudflow hazard area. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impacts related
to these hazards, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are on the same site which is
not subject to any of these risks, so there are no impacts in that regard.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
55
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is in an urbanized area and is surrounded by
developed uses. Directly west of the project site are the Santa Anita Park race track, the
Arboretum of Los Angeles County is further to the west, and a regional mall called the Westfield
Mall Santa Anita is to the southwest just south of the racetrack. North of the project site are
offices and retail commercial areas along Colorado Place. North of these commercial and office
uses are existing residential neighborhoods. A small bar called the “100 to 1” is located at the
northeast corner of the project site. To the east of the project site is the Arcadia County Park.
South of the proposed site are the Civic Center Athletic Field Recreational Area and the City Hall
complex. An individual house used by the Salvation Army as a rehabilitation facility is
immediately south of the southwest corner of the site, and farther southwest are the Methodist
Hospital, Quest Diagnostics Medical Lab, and Medical Library.
Demolition of the existing hotel and construction of new lodging and other commercial uses on
the project site would not physically divide an established community, as the proposed site plan
indicates that access in and around the site will be maintained similar or better than that which
exists now. The only existing residential land use is north of the site (north of the office and
commercial uses along Colorado Place) and the rest of the surrounding land uses are
commercial in nature or public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project will not divide an
existing community, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project and approved SPSP are the same site which
has the same neighborhood conditions, so potential impacts in terms of dividing a neighborhood
would be the same (i.e., less than significant).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The City of Arcadia is a charter city as opposed to a general law
city. Arcadia’s General Plan designates the proposed project area as commercial with a
downtown overlay (for higher FAR), while the zoning is general commercial (C-2) with the
downtown overlay and a height overlay (H-8) which allows buildings up to 95 feet or 8 stories,
as shown in Table G.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
56
Table H: General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
Area/Direction Land Use Designations Zoning Designations
PROJECT SITE Commercial – Downtown Overlay1 General Commercial (C-2) with
Downtown Overlay1 and Special
Height Overlay (H-8)2
North of Project Site
(downtown neighborhoods)
Commercial - Downtown Overlay1 General Commercial (C-2) with
Downtown Overlay1
South of Project Site
(City Hall and Hospital)
Public/Institutional Public Purpose (S-2)
East of Project Site
(Arcadia County Park)
Open Space - Outdoor Recreation Public Purpose (S-2)
West of Project Site
(Santa Anita Park)
Horse Racing Special Uses (S-1)
Source: Arcadia General Plan Land Use Map, Hogle-Ireland 2010 and approved City Zoning Map, November 2010.
1 allows Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 1.0 otherwise commercial FAR is 0.5
2 H-8 allows building heights up to 95 feet or 8 stories
The City’s General Plan says the following about the Commercial land use designation…
The Commercial designation is intended to permit a wide range of commercial uses which
serve both neighborhood and citywide markets. The designation allows a broad array of
commercial enterprises, including restaurants, durable goods sales, food stores, lodging,
professional offices, specialty shops, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, and
entertainment uses. Adjacent to Downtown, the Commercial designation is intended to
encourage small-scale office and neighborhood-serving commercial uses that complement
development in the Downtown Mixed Use areas. While the land use designation provides
the general parameters within which development must take place, the Zoning Code or
other land use regulatory document specifies the type and intensity of uses that will be
permitted in a given area. In the Downtown area, for example, where properties are
designated Commercial, land use regulations might specify that restaurants and cafes are
permitted, but secondhand stores are not. The Zoning Code and other regulatory
documents also indicate permitted building height limits for specific properties.
Maximum FAR – 0.50
Higher intensity overlays are applied to portions of Downtown along Santa Anita Avenue,
Colorado Place, and Huntington Drive (1.0 FAR).
The description of “permitted” uses above lists “lodging” which typically includes hotels and
other kinds of short-term, temporary, vacation, or seasonal residences. The Specific Plan
indicates that the proposed hotel condominiums are considered to be more like a type of
lodging because many of them would be used as “time share” or other types of temporary
(short-term) or seasonal (limited) occupants, typically less than one year at a time. These units
will be marketed directly to race track-related guests and staff. They are not intended to
support a large number of full-time occupants compared to standard residential-type units that
would have permanent long-term City residents.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
57
Section 9220.29 of the City’s Municipal Code (zoning) defines “Hotel is a building in which there
are six or more guest rooms where lodging with or without meals is provided for compensation
as the more or less temporary abiding place of individuals and where no provision is made for
cooking in any individual room or suite.” All of the hotel rooms meet this definition. Although
the condominium units will have kitchens, they are much closer to the definition of hotel units
rather than standard residential units for the reasons listed above. Therefore, the two hotels
and the hotel condominiums in the Seabiscuit Pacifica project are consistent with the allowable
uses under the General Plan under the “commercial” land use designation, therefore, the
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan does not require a General Plan Amendment.
In response to questions about the specific nature of the hotel condominiums, the developer
provided the following information:
The hotel condominium concept was first introduced in Miami, Florida during the early 1980’s
and was further developed through the1990’s. Developers started building newer and larger
hotel condominiums next to hotels. Then the concept really took off in the last ten years.
Franchise hotels have been developing high end, luxury extended stay hotels all over the
world. The trend has been extremely successful and will only get more popular as time on.
We have studied a handful of luxury hotels in Hawaii and Los Angeles, particularly the iconic
buildings, L.A. Live in Los Angeles and W Hotel in Hollywood. Both projects have been very
successful. Our hotel condominiums look to mimic the success of L.A. Live and will be
anchored similarly by a Marriott hotel, brandishing the Ritz Carlton Residence name.
The basic concept of the hotel condominium is to service business and leisure travelers who
are looking to stay more than a few days in a luxury hotel in Arcadia. It will boast the full
amenities of a real home and a grand view of the Santa Anita Race Track and the San
Gabriel Valley. Internet, phone, concierge, mail service, and 24 hour security are just some
of the accommodations that will be offered. Ideal patrons can range from international
business people to families making long term visits. The condo tower will offer a high end
lodging option in the heart of the city, which will accentuate the Arcadia lifestyle and provide
something our community lacks.
Our studies show a strong demand for a hotel condominium that can provide adequate
service for business travelers, leisure travelers and overseas investors who are looking to
stay more than a few days in a hotel. The hotel condominium will be a lodging option unlike
any other in the city by providing more bedrooms, privacy and luxury comfort for all guests.
As the developer, we hope to sell all 50 units to recover some of the construction costs. All
units will be subdivided and sold once the certificate of occupancy is issued. The building will
stand 8 stories tall with a French Normandy style and feature quality construction that will
meet city code and regulations like the Ritz Carlton at L.A. Live. The estimated cost per
square foot to market will be around $550/square foot and with an average of 2,000 square
feet per unit, each unit will be worth at least $1 million. We estimate the weekly rental to be
around $1,200 and monthly to be $4,500. We do not expect any difficulty with either
soliciting buyers or renters since we have a limited supply of only 50 units. And at the end of
the day, this will only make our project more exclusive and prestigious, falling in line with the
21st century lifestyle of Arcadia.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
58
The management company for the hotel condominiums can either be a licensed hospitality
management group or a Marriott-approved management company. We will use Marriott’s list
of recommended management companies since we hope to apply the Marriott franchise
name to this development such as the Ritz Carlton.
Through our studies, we feel very strongly that the hotel and hotel condominiums can be
linked into one controlling entity.
Developer’s Preference
All new units will be built to the highest standard of quality. Like the Ritz Carlton, they will be
sold on the open market to 50 different buyers from all over the world. We expect to have at
least 150-200 qualified buyers on our waitlist and will reserve the right to have preference in
approving buyers based on the intended use. Our pre-selected buyer will utilize the unit as
an investment and only make short stays. Our selection process will be geared towards
owners like jockey, horse owners, and especially overseas seasonal travelers.
Compliance with City TOT Policy
Since the hotel condominiums have some residential elements, guests will be subject to TOT
tax just like the existing Santa Anita Inn. The TOT tax requirements will be written into the
HOA policy for each individual owner to agree to and pay through the management
company. The document will spell out a TOT tax requirement of 10% that will be paid within
the first 90 days of stay once the owner turns the unit over for the management company to
rent.
The individual owner will not have the right to stay indefinitely without paying taxes and will
be exposed to TOT tax in the first 90 days as well. The owner can only rent by using the on-
site management and leasing company. And once they rent out a unit, there will be tax
consequences. Our studies show 85% of buyers at L.A. Live are investors that use their
purchases as rental units in the same way.
Control of All Units
No condominium unit can be sold without an HOA Policy approved by the California
Department of Real Estate (DRE) and the City of Arcadia. Our company attorney will draft
the HOA forming documents that will spell out all City TOT requirements and that all owners
must agree to rent through the hotel management company. The management company will
also collect the TOT tax and pay the City monthly. The key to the concept is that the hotel
condominiums will be taxed no differently than how a regular hotel is. The additional income
to that of the new 210 hotel rooms will benefit the City even more with another source for
tax generation. The way the tax is collected and paid to the city makes this project unique
and different from any other condominium project in the City.
The City’s zoning map indicates the site is zoned General Commercial (C-2) which allows hotels
with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council would
allow the hotels and condominiums by right and eliminate the need for a CUP consistent with
state law for charter cities. In addition, no zone change would be required as the Specific Plan
becomes the zoning for the property upon approval by the City.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
59
The City’s General Plan and zoning map indicate the site has a “Downtown Overlay” that allows
a “Floor Area Ratio” (FAR) of up to 1.0 compared to a non-overlay commercial FAR of 0.5. The
total building area of the Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan indicates the project FAR is slightly
over 1.0 (see Table 2.B). However, approval of the Specific Plan by the City Council will
constitute acceptance by the City that the proposed Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan is generally
consistent with the General Plan, and that any modification to the building development
characteristics shown in this Specific Plan will require City Council approval of a Specific Plan
Amendment.
The City’s zoning map indicates the site has a Height Overlay (H-8) which allows buildings up to
95 feet in height or 8 stories, as shown below from the City’s Municipal Code Section 9276.2.2:
9276.2.2. - HEIGHT LIMIT
Any building or structure in Zone H may, by complying with the provisions of this Title,
exceed the height limitation applicable to the basic zone in which it is located; provided,
however, that no building or structure shall in any event exceed the height limit set forth in
the following table:
Zone H8 - Eight (8) stories or ninety-five (95) feet.
The tallest building in the proposed Seabiscuit Pacifica project is 98 feet with 8 stories, so the
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan is slightly inconsistent with the H-8 Height Overlay (+3%
higher). However, approval of the Specific Plan would eliminate this minor inconsistency and no
mitigation is proposed.
Appendix B of the Specific Plan contains a detailed tabular comparison of the General Plan
policies and goals that are applicable to this project. It indicates the proposed project is
consistent with all of the applicable General Plan policies and goals.
Based on this analysis, the proposed Specific Plan appears to be generally consistent with the
City’s General Plan and zoning designations and applicable development guidelines and the
City’s zoning designations. Therefore, the proposed project would have no significant land use
impacts related to existing applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations, and no
mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project requests removal of the term “hotel”
condominium from the SPSP and instead wishes to have standard residential condominiums.
The General Plan designation for the site is commercial, and that designation does not allow
residential uses, so the applicant has requested changing the land use designation to
Downtown Mixed Use to allow both commercial (hotel and office) and residential
(condominium) uses. A similar request for a zone change to mixed use has also been
requested. The building heights in the proposed SPSPA are consistent with the height limits in
the Downtown Height Overlay (H-8 to 95 feet) that is already in place on the property.
Therefore, the proposed modified project will be consistent with the City General Plan and
zoning and would be essentially the same as that already approved under the SPSP in terms of
aesthetics and height.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
60
The main difference between the approved project and the proposed modified project is the
inclusion of residential condominiums rather than hotel condominiums which will have some
number of full-time residents. A worst case assumption would be that all the units are occupied
at some point with 2 persons per unit or a total of 100 residents. This number of additional
residents would not result in significant land use impacts on the project site or for the
surrounding area, and in fact additional full-time residents would help improve the local
economy through purchases of goods and services, in addition to the increased property taxes
from additional residential units.
The analysis of the original project in this Initial Study determined that the hotel and hotel
condo uses on this site would not conflict with the goals or policies of the General Plan, and
these are very similar uses to those under the proposed SPA. Therefore, the revised project
would not conflict with the applicable General Plan goals and policies and its land use impacts
would be similar to those of the approved SPSP (i.e. less than significant).
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is not designated for any type of habitat
protection under the City’s General Plan, and is not covered by any adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan. Therefore, there will be no impacts
in this regard, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same site conditions regarding HCPs or
NCCPs as the original project, so there are no impacts in this regard.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is within the fully developed downtown area
of Arcadia, and does not contain, nor is it designated as, a source of mineral resources (e.g.,
construction aggregate). Therefore, there will be no impacts in this regard, and no mitigation is
required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The revised project has the same site conditions regarding mineral
resources as the original project, so there are no impacts in this regard.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
61
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI.b) See response XI.a.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project is in an urbanized area and surrounded
by developed uses. Directly west of the project site is the Santa Anita Park horse racing track,
while the Arboretum of Los Angeles County is further to the west. A regional mall called the
Westfield Mall Santa Anita is located southwest of the site just south of Santa Anita Park.
Immediately north of the proposed project site are offices and retail commercial areas along
Colorado Place, and further north of these offices are existing residential areas west of the main
downtown area. Just east of the project site is the Arcadia County Park, while to the south is
the Civic Center Athletic Field Recreational Area and (further south) is the Arcadia City Hall. A
rehab facility in a single family house used by the Salvation Army is located at the southwest
corner of the project site, while an old bar is located at the northeast corner of the project site.
Farther to the southwest are the Methodist Hospital, Quest Diagnostics Medical Lab, and
Medical Library.
Short-Term Impacts
A noise impact assessment for the proposed project was prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA
August 2013)(Appendix H). The assessment indicates that short-term noise impacts would be
associated with excavation, grading, and erecting of buildings on site during construction of the
proposed project. Construction-related short-term noise levels would be higher than existing
ambient noise levels in the project area today but would no longer occur once construction of
the project is completed.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers, bulldozers,
and water and pickup trucks. This equipment would be used on the project site. Based on the
information in Table F of the Noise Impact Analysis, and assuming that each piece of
construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, the worst-case
combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of
50 feet from the active construction area.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
62
According to the Noise Impact Analysis, the residences nearest to the project site are more than
1,000 feet to the north of the project boundary. These residences may be subject to short-term,
intermittent, maximum noise reaching 65 dBA Lmax, generated by construction activities on the
project site. Compliance with the construction hours specified in the City’s Noise Control
Ordinance would reduce the construction noise impacts to less than significant.
However, the existing Salvation Army rehab facility is so close to the southwest corner of the
project site that demolition of the existing hotel buildings and construction of the new
condominiums in Phase 2 may have significant noise impacts on the rehab facility. Out of an
abundance of caution, it would be prudent to install a temporary noise barrier for this facility
along the common boundary until Phase 2 construction is complete.
Long-Term Impacts
According to the Noise Impact Analysis, vehicular traffic trips associated with the proposed
project would not result in significant traffic noise impacts on off-site sensitive uses. However,
the proposed hotel units adjacent to Huntington Drive (Eastbound) and Huntington Drive
(Westbound) would be potentially exposed to significant traffic noise from these streets.
The Noise Impact Analysis Tables G-H (see Appendix H pages 12-16 in the study) show the
existing traffic noise levels, existing plus cumulative with project traffic noise levels, opening
year (2016) without project traffic noise levels , and opening year (2016) plus cumulative with
project scenarios traffic noise levels. “These noise levels represent the worst-case scenario,
which assumes that no shielding is provided between the traffic and the location where the
noise contours are drawn” (page 12, LSA August 2013). The largest increase in noise in the
area will be 1.0 dBA and will occur due to increased traffic along Huntington Drive (westbound)
from Holly Drive to Santa Clara Street because of the proposed project. This noise increase is
not perceptible to the human ear and will have a less than significant impact on long term noise
impacts to off-site land uses.
According to the Noise Impact Analysis, hotel balconies and patios along Huntington Drive
westbound and eastbound will be exposed to traffic noise reaching 63 dBA CNEL, which is lower
than the City’s 65 dBA CNEL noise standard for noise-sensitive outdoor active uses. Therefore,
no noise barrier is required. Interior noise levels with windows closed would also be below the
City’s 45 dBA CNEL noise standard. However, with windows open, interior noise levels would
be higher than 45 dBA CNEL. This is a significant impact and requires mitigation in the form of
an air-conditioning system for frontline hotel rooms along both Huntington Drives.
Residential uses north of the project site would be physically blocked from noise emanating
from onsite loading/unloading activities for proposed project uses. Therefore, no significant
noise impacts would occur for these off-site residences from on-site noise generating activities.
Noise levels from parking lot noises are anticipated to be lower than that of the truck delivery
and loading/unloading activities. Parking lot noise is not anticipated to be a significant noise
issue with respect to hotel customers within the project site. HVAC equipment is typically
located on the building rooftop and is assumed that, as a worst-case scenario, HVAC equipment
would operate 24 hours a day. The closest neighboring residence to the HVAC equipment is
estimated to experience noise levels below the City’s nighttime maximum noise level of 60 dBA
Lmax. Therefore, noise generated from HVAC equipment would not have a significant noise
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
63
impact. Mitigation is not required for less than significant impacts from truck delivery loading,
parking lot noises, and HVAC equipment.
As with short-term noise impacts from construction, there may be long-term noise impacts at
the existing Salvation Army rehab facility due to its proximity to the southwest corner of the
project site. Occupancy of the new condominiums in Phase 2 is not expected to cause
significant long-term noise impacts on the rehab facility. However, out of an abundance of
caution, it would be prudent to install a filled cell block wall as a permanent noise barrier for
this facility along its common boundary with the proposed project once construction of the
condominium building is complete. This wall would help minimize any potential long-term noise
impacts on the Salvation Army facility.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of the project,
the developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan and will submit the
plan the City for review and approval. The plan shall include but will not be
limited to the following:
During all project site excavation and grading, contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from the closest sensitive receptor to the
project site (i.e., the Salvation Army facility at the southwest corner of the
site).
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will
create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and
the closest noise-sensitive receptor to the project site (i.e., the Salvation
Army facility at the southwest corner of the site) during all project
construction.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit all
construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday. No
construction shall be permitted on Sundays or any of the holidays listed in
AMC Section 4261.
Prior to the start of Phase 2 grading, the developer shall install a wooden
noise barrier along the common boundary of the project and the Salvation
Army rehab facility at the southwest corner of the project site. This barrier
shall be removed upon completion of Phase 2 construction.
N-2 Prior to the issuance of building permit for each phase, the developer shall
demonstrate that all buildings shall have air-conditioning to minimize noise
impacts on hotel rooms along West and East Huntington Drives.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
64
N-3 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Phase 2 condominium
building, the developer shall install a filled-cell concrete block wall along the
common boundary with the Salvation Army rehab facility at the southwest corner
of the project site. In lieu of the temporary construction wall outlined in Measure
N-1, the developer may install this permanent wall “early” (i.e., prior to issuance
of occupancy permits for Phase 1) which would eliminate the need for that
portion of Measure N-1.
With implementation of these measures, the proposed project will not have any significant
short- or long-term noise impacts on surrounding land uses.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP with a change from hotel to residential condos, which could add
permanent full-time residents to the area, and the addition of 6,762 square feet of office/retail
space on the bottom floor of the condo tower in Phase 2. Despite these incremental changes,
anticipated noise impacts of the proposed project are expected to be equivalent to those of the
approved SPSP project, so impacts are less than significant with mitigation.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. Vibration refers to groundborne noise and perceptible
motion. Groundborne vibration is almost exclusively a concern inside buildings and is rarely
perceived as a problem outdoors, where the motion may be discernible, but without the effects
associated with the shaking of a building, there is less adverse reaction. Bulldozers and other
heavy-tracked construction equipment generate approximately 92 VdB of groundborne vibration
when measured at 50 feet. This level of groundborne vibration exceeds the threshold of human
perception, which is around 65 VdB. Every doubling of distance from 50 feet results in the
reduction of the vibration level by 6 VdB; therefore, receptors at 100 and 200 feet from the
construction activity may be exposed to groundborne vibration up to 86 and 80 VdB,
respectively.
Existing and proposed streets surrounding the project area are paved, smooth, and unlikely to
cause significant ground-borne vibration. In addition, the rubber tires and suspension systems
of buses and other on-road vehicles make it unusual for on-road vehicles to cause ground-
borne noise or vibration problems. It is therefore assumed that no such vehicular vibration
impacts would occur and that no vibration impact analysis of on-road vehicles is necessary.
During Phase 1, demolition and excavation will take place mainly in the northern portion of the
site, so the Salvation Army facility would not be significantly impacted by vibration from
grading. During Phase 2, and especially during excavation of the subterranean parking,
vibration from grading may be felt by residents of the Salvation Army facility. However, no
blasting or pile-driving activities are expected as part of grading for this project, so vibration
effects will be temporary and relatively limited relative to the Salvation Army facility. No other
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
65
sensitive receptors would be affected by project grading and construction due to the distance
from the project site to these uses (i.e., residences to the north).
Ground-borne vibration from construction activities will be mostly low to moderate, except
during on-site grading and earthmoving activities. Vibrations associated with on-site
construction would be reduced to a level less than what is perceptible to the average human.
Additionally, groundborne vibration during construction activity would be temporary and cease
upon completion of construction, and is therefore considered to be a less than significant
impact of the proposed project.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. Anticipated vibration impacts of the proposed project are expected to
be equivalent to those of the approved SPSP project, so impacts are less than significant.
c) Substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.c) Original SPSP Analysis. Current noise levels on the project site are relatively low and
are related to activities of the existing Santa Anita Inn. The proposed project would introduce
more intense development to the site, which will increase ambient noise levels compared to
those of the Santa Anita Inn. The project noise study indicated that these increases would be
noticeable but would not represent a significant adverse noise impact (page 18, LSA August
2013). With the proposed Mitigation Meaures N-1 through N-4, the proposed project is not
expected to result in significant adverse noise impacts or noise levels in excess of identified
standards. For a more detailed analysis, see Section XII.a above.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. Anticipated noise impacts of the proposed project are expected to be
equivalent to those of the approved SPSP project, so impacts are less than significant.
d) Substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.d) Original SPSP Analysis. Although activity on the site will increase as a result of the
new land uses and construction, the analysis provided in Section XII.a demonstrates that the
proposed project will not generate significant noise impacts over the long-term for either onsite
or offsite uses (LSA August 2013).
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA is the same type and size of project approved
under the original SPSP. Anticipated noise impacts of the proposed project are expected to be
equivalent to those of the approved SPSP project, so impacts are less than significant.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
66
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan
study area, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The proposed project
would therefore have no impacts related to exposure of residents or workers to excessive
airport noise levels, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project site is the same as the approved SPSP site,
and it is not within two miles of a public airport. Therefore, impacts are the same as with the
approved SPSP (i.e., no impact).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII.f) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site is not located within the influence area of a
private airstrip. The proposed project would therefore have no impact related to exposure of
residents or workers to excessive airstrip noise levels, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project site is the same as the approved SPSP site,
and it is not within two miles of a private airstrip. Therefore, impacts are the same as with the
approved SPSP (i.e., no impact).
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project would result in only minor population
growth for the City. The site contains an existing hotel with 26 employees at present (14 full
time employees and 12 part time employees), while the proposed project would add 85 full-
time or part-time commercial service employees to the local workforce. Also, the “population”
of the new hotel and hotel condominiums would be approximately 442 people at buildout based
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
67
on at 85 percent average occupancy and assuming 2 people per unit.3 The population of the
existing Santa Anita Inn at 85 percent occupancy would be 187 persons.4 Assuming similar
occupancy for the existing 110 units of the Santa Anita Inn (i.e., 187 occupants on average),
the proposed project would increase the hotel-related “population” of the City by approximately
255 people. It should be remembered that the proposed project uses are lodging and so would
not add this number of actual full-time residents to the City’s population. For additional
information on the nature of the hotel condominiums, see Section X, Land Use and Planning.
This “population” increase would be primarily transient or seasonal based on the Santa Anita
Park race schedule. The proposed project would also not result in the need for any new utilities,
except for the planned sewer improvements. Therefore, due to the nature and size of the
project, it is not expected to result in any significant indirect growth inducement to the City’s
population or housing. No significant impacts are expected in this regard, and no mitigation is
required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project would construct residential condos on the site
rather than the original hotel condos under the SPSP. The previous analysis determined that
“the proposed project would increase the hotel-related “population” of the City by
approximately 255 people. It should be remembered that the proposed project uses would now
be considered residences and could have permanent or full-time occupants as opposed to
temporary lodgers under the original proposal. As a worst case estimate, if all 50 units had 2
full-time residents, the long-term population of the project would be 100 residents which would
then incrementally increase the City’s population. However, some or all of these residents may
now be counted as full-time residents under the amended this potential population-related
increase is incremental compared to the City’s 2013 estimate population of 57,639 residents
(0.17 percent), so the potential population impacts of the proposed project would be less than
significant, similar to that of the approved SPSP.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The site does not currently contain any housing units, so
construction of the proposed project would not result in displacement of existing housing or
construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City or nearby County areas. However,
the project would eventually result in the loss of 110 hotel units, but provide a total of 260 hotel
and condominium units, for a net increase in 150 lodging units. No significant housing impacts
are expected, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project site is the same as the approved SPSP site, so
impacts are the same as with the approved SPSP (i.e., no impact).
3 210 rooms x 0.85 x 2 people per room = 357 persons
4 50 rooms x 0.85 x 2 people per room = 85 persons
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
68
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The site does not currently contain any housing units but
does have and an existing hotel. As outlined in Section XIII.a and XIII.b above, the existing
hotel has an average occupancy of 187 guests, while the new hotel and condominium units
would have an average occupancy of 442 guests. Demolition of the existing hotel is not
expected to result in the displacement of existing housing (as opposed to lodging) or
construction of replacement housing elsewhere in the City or nearby County areas. Therefore,
no impacts are expected in this regard and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project site is the same as the approved SPSP site,
and the proposed uses would not change appreciably, the residential condos and offices would
not result in any significant additional number of people on the site or in the City, so impacts
are the same as with the approved SPSP (i.e., no impact).
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) 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:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site contains the existing Santa Anita Inn, a hotel
with 110 rooms. The proposed project would place similar lodging-oriented commercial uses on
this site that would generate more local traffic and introduce more employees and guests to the
project area. The proposed project would introduce more employees to the site than at present
(85 vs. 26), and this change of use would incrementally increase the need for fire, police, parks,
and other public facilities. However, these increases would be incremental and not result in any
significant service impacts. Since it will not include new homes or generate new residents, the
proposed project will not have any significant impacts on local schools or parks. The proposed
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
69
project will pay all applicable Development Impact Fees to the City and local school district to
alleviate potential impacts related to public services.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project is very similar to the approved SPSP site, the
only changes are the residential condos and offices would incrementally increase the need for
some public services, but these minor increases would not change the overall assessment of
impacts as there would not be a significant increase in the number of people on the site or in
the City, so impacts are the same as with the approved SPSP (i.e., less than significant.
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project proposes only commercial uses that will not
generate a significant amount of new permanent residents in the City who would require
additional recreational facilities or programs. Many project workers will likely live in or near to
Arcadia, and can take advantage of existing City and County park facilities and services. Some
new workers may live outside of Arcadia and may place incremental increased demand on City
park facilities and services. However, these impacts would be incremental and would not
represent significant impacts to City recreation facilities or services.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed project is very similar to the approved SPSP site, the
only changes are the residential condos that would incrementally increase the need for
recreation services (e.g., slightly more use of the County park to the east). If all 50 condos had
full time residents, there might be as many as 100 additional residents in the area or in the City
(assuming 2 residents per condo). This minor increase would not be expected to substantially
change the overall assessment of impacts, although it would result in higher Developer Impact
Fees for park services/facilities. Potential impacts to recreation would still be essentially the
same as with the approved SPSP (i.e., less than significant.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities
or require the construction or expansion or
recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The project proposes commercial lodging uses which would
not generate a substantial amount of new City residents, so the proposed project would not
generate a need to expand existing City recreational facilities. The proposed project will also
have a number of indoor and outdoor event or public spaces which will help reduce potential
impacts on local park facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts associated with this issue
would occur, and no mitigation is required.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
70
Proposed SPA Analysis. See Response XV.a above.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
71
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness
for the performance of the circulation system,
taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system,
including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian
and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the proposed project
(Kimley Horn & Associates July 2013)(Appendix G) evaluated twelve (12) local roadways and
four (4) local intersections based on the City’s traffic study requirements and the County’s
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. It concluded that Phase 1 of the proposed project
will generate a total of 842 daily trips on weekdays, 24 in the AM peak and 62 in the PM peak,
and 844 trips on Saturday, 75 of which are during the PM peak. Phase 2 would generate a total
of 412 daily trips on a weekday, 43 tips in the AM peak and 62 trips in the PM peak, and 395
trips on Saturday, 44 of which are during the PM peak.
The project traffic impact analysis used the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for
both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The HCM method examines the ratio of volume
to capacity (V/C) and emphasizes seconds of delay on each leg of an intersection. All traffic
data are presented in Appendix G of this document. The following analysis summarizes the
project traffic impacts using Level of Service (LOS) rankings, which are on a sliding scale of A
though F, with A being excellent traffic flow through an intersection and F being extensive
congestion. A more detailed explanation of LOS values is provided in the project traffic impact
analysis and a supplemental memorandum addressing City staff comments in Appendix G.
The City of Arcadia utilizes CMP traffic impact study guidelines that define a “significant traffic
impact” as an increase in demand by at least 2 percent where the intersection would operate at
LOS F with the project traffic.
According to the traffic report the intersection at Huntington Drive and Colorado Place would be
negatively impacted due to the proposed project. Phase 1 will have significant impacts on the
intersection of Huntington Drive and Colorado Place due to increase of greater than 2 percent
demand. However, Phase 2 of the proposed project will not have significant impacts on
surrounding intersections.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
72
Table I: Summary of Intersection Analysis (2013)1
Intersection
Weekday Saturday
Am Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact PM Peak Hour Impact
V/C LOS Change* V/C LOS Change* V/C LOS Change*
1. Huntington
Drive/Santa
Anita Avenue
0.747 C 0.010 0.811 D 0.001 No 0.691 B 0.001 No
2. Huntington
Drive/Santa
Clara Street
0.904 D 0.005 0.787 C 0.005 No 0.646 B 0.007 No
3. Huntington
Drive/Colorado
Place
868.850 F 868.306 887.6 F 886.42 Yes 1181.350 F 1180.71 Yes
4. Huntington
Drive/Holly
Ave
0.786 C 0.001 0.567 A 0.001 No 0.598 A 0.001 No
Source: Table 13, Kimley Horn & Associates, July 2013
1 Level of Service (LOS) values that include Existing (2013) plus Cumulative plus Ambient plus Project traffic
V/C = HCM methodology showing volume to capacity ratio
— = HCM only applies to signalized intersections
LOS = Level of Service (A through F)
Table J: Summary of Intersection Analysis (2016)1
Intersection
Weekday Saturday
Am Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Impact PM Peak Hour Impact
V/C LOS Change* V/C LOS Change* V/C LOS Change*
1. Huntington
Drive/Santa
Anita Avenue
0.785 C 0.012 0.840 D 0.000 No 0.716 C 0.000 No
2. Huntington
Drive/Santa
Clara Street
0.938 E 0.002 0.818 D 0.003 No 0.672 B 0.003 No
3. Huntington
Drive/Colorado
Place
0.530 A 0.003 0.792 C 0.004 No 0.655 B 0.000 No
4. Huntington
Drive/Holly Ave
0.813 D 0.000 0.586 A 0.000 No 0.618 B 0.000 No
Source: Table 21, Kimley Horn & Associates, July 2013
1 Level of Service values include 2016 plus Ambient Plus Project traffic
V/C = HCM methodology showing volume to capacity ratio
— = HCM only applies to signalized intersections
LOS = Level of Service (A through F)
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
73
Table K: Summary of Roadway Analysis: Existing (2016)1
Roadway Segment V/C LOS Change
1. Huntington Drive Baldwin Avenue to Holly Drive 0.443 A 0.002
2. Huntington Drive (EB) Holly Drive to Santa Clara Street 0.505 A 0.001
3. Huntington Drive (WB) Holly Drive to Colorado Place 0.620 B 0.005
4. Huntington Drive Santa Clara Street to Santa Anita Avenue 0.657 B 0.005
5. Duarte Road Holly Drive to Santa Anita Avenue 0.592 A 0.000
6. Live Oak Avenue Anta Anita Avenue to Second Avenue 0.691 B 0.000
7. Baldwin Avenue Colorado Street to Santa Anita Mall
Driveway A
0.823 D 0.003
8. Baldwin Avenue** Santa Anita Mall Driveway A to
Huntington Drive
0.590 A 0.002
9. Santa Anita Avenue Foothill Blvd to I-210 WB Ramps 0.699 B 0.004
10. Santa Anita Avenue Colorado Boulevard to Santa Clara Street 0.795 C 0.004
11. Santa Anita Avenue Santa Clara Street to Huntington Drive 0.627 B 0.004
12. Santa Anita Avenue Huntington Drive to Campus Drive 0.686 B 0.001
Source: Table 20, Kimley Horn & Associates, July 2013
1 Level of Service values include 2016 plus Ambient Plus Project traffic
V/C = HCM methodology showing volume to capacity ratio
— = HCM only applies to signalized intersections
LOS = Level of Service (A through F)
Regarding parking, the site plan includes 340 parking spaces and the City requires 312 parking
spaces. While parking was recently removed from the State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G
Checklist as an environmental issue, it is nonetheless important to know how much parking is
being provided by the project compared to how much is needed and/or required by the City to
assure that project occupants will not have to park on adjacent properties due to a deficiency of
onsite parking.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures are proposed to help ensure that project-related traffic, both short-term
during construction and long-term after project occupancy, are reduced to less than significant
levels, as outlined in the project traffic study (KHA 2013):
TRA-1 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for either hotel in Phase 1, the
developer shall be responsible for installing an additional signal phase to
accommodate northbound movements exiting the shared hotel driveway and
southbound movements entering the hotel driveway. The developer will also
change the number one lane to a shared through and left turn lane to access the
driveway for the hotels and modify the signal to account for the added phases
and lanes. These changes shall be made to the satisfaction of and in
coordination with the City traffic engineer.
TRA-2 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for either of the hotels or the
condominiums, the developer shall install bike racks and provide showers and
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
74
locker rooms for employees who wish to ride bicycles to work. Bike racks shall
also be installed for project guests in appropriate locations. An appropriate
number of bike racks shall be located near each building to serve the anticipated
number of employees and guests. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
TRA-3 Prior to issuance of building permits for either Phase 1 or Phase 2, the project
plans shall be circulated to Foothill Transit (FT) and the Metropolitan Transit
Authority (MTA) to determine if there is a need for a bus stop on the south side
of Colorado Place in front of the project site (i.e., for either FT Route 187 or MTA
routes 78, 79, or 378). If either agency determines a need for such a stop, the
developer shall install a bus stop to agency specifications prior to issuance of
occupancy permits for the affected phase of development. This measure shall be
implemented for each phase to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
TRA-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for either hotel in Phase 1, the developer
shall demonstrate that the main hotel entrance for Phase 1 has a circular drive
with signage to allow only one way circulation (counter-clockwise) to provide
adequate vehicle queuing lanes for exiting at the traffic signal. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
With implementation of these measures, potential traffic and non-vehicular circulation impacts
of the proposed project will be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The original traffic study used residential condominiums as a worst
case estimate for traffic impacts for the original project, and the additional amount of
commercial space (i.e., offices on 50% of the ground floor) would not generate a significant
amount of additional traffic beyond what was examined in the original traffic study. For
example, the Phase 2 building is 115,269 SF so 50% coverage for offices would be 57,635
square feet which equals 640 daily trips max. and approx. 64 peak hour trips. By comparison,
TIA Table 10 indicates the two hotels would generate 1,734 weekday trips and it is estimated
the condos would generate an additional 400 trips (2,134 trips total). As long as the same
mitigation measures are implemented, traffic impacts from the SPA would be equivalent to
those estimated for the original project (i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.b) Original SPSP Analysis. The project Traffic Impact Analysis was performed in
accordance with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines.
Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict an applicable congestion management program
with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4.
Proposed SPA Analysis. See Response XVI.a above. Similar level of impact.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
75
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that result in substantial
safety risks?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project does not include uses or components
that would affect air traffic, so no substantial safety risks would result from project
implementation. No significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are the same site and any
project on the site would have no impact on local air traffic patterns.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.d Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project will increase traffic onsite and on
adjacent streets and intersections. The project leg of the skewed intersection adjacent to the
project site entrance is presently uncontrolled and signed for “right turn only”. Although there
have been no accidents at this location, a substantial increase in traffic from the project site
would substantially increase the risk of traffic accidents at this location due to this leg of the
intersection being uncontrolled.
The project traffic study recommends the proposed project be responsible for improvements to
the existing traffic signal to add controls to the project leg of the intersection (see Mitigation
Measure TRA-1). This measure will provide traffic control as development intensity of the site
increase and will prevent the increase of hazards due to design features of the proposed
project. There will be no significant impacts with implementation of this mitigation measure.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA has essentially the same external design and
layout as the approved SPSP, so impacts will be less than significant as long as the mitigation
measures recommended for the SPSP are implemented by the SPA.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The Arcadia Police Department is less than a minute away
and the Arcadia Station 106 Fire Department is only three minutes away from the project site.
Traffic associated with project construction may have a temporary effect on existing traffic
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
76
circulation patterns. However, the proposed project is in a urban setting and direct access to
the site will be available primarily from West Huntington Drive and secondary emergency access
will be provided by a driveway on East Huntington Drive. Due to the proximity of emergency
services, the urban setting, and availability of access to the site impacts to emergency access
will be less than significant. The proposed project will also comply with all of the City’s
requirements for emergency access. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts and no
mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA and approved SPSP are the same site so any
impacts related to emergency response and services would be the same (i.e., less than
significant).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI.g) Original SPSP Analysis. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-2 and TRA-
3, the proposed project would be consistent with City policies supporting public transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. With this mitigation, impacts will be less than significant and no
additional mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA has essentially the same external design and
layout as the approved SPSP, and mitigation measures regarding transit were included in the
original approval. Impacts will be less than significant as long as the mitigation measures
recommended for the SPSP are implemented by the SPA.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site currently has an existing hotel that
discharges its wastewater into the sanitary sewerage collection and treatment systems provided
by the City of Arcadia and the County of Los Angeles, respectively. Under Section 402 of the
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to regulate waste discharges
to “waters of the U.S.,” which includes rivers, lakes, and their tributary waters. Waste
discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction project discharges. Construction
of a project resulting in the disturbance of more than one acre requires an NPDES permit.
Construction project proponents are also required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
77
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). These measures are outlined in Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through
HYD-3 in the previous Section IX.a, Hydrology and Water Quality. Prior to the issuance of
grading permits, the project applicant would be required to satisfy City requirements related to
the payment of fees and/or the provision of adequate wastewater facilities. The project would
comply with the waste discharge prohibitions and water quality objectives established by the
RWCQB and the City by implementing Mitigation Measures HYD-1 through HYD-3. By
implementing these measures, project impacts related to this issue would be reduced to a less
than significant level and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA would incrementally increase wastewater
generation from the site by adding full time residents and office workers in Phase 2. The
original analysis determined wastewater impacts were less than significant, so an incremental
increase in wastewater generation is not expected to substantially increase that level of impact,
so impacts are still considered less than significant.
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. Water and wastewater services are provided to the project
site by the City of Arcadia Public Works Services Department. The department obtains water
from both groundwater and imported water. The City also provides sewer service collection to
the local area. Wastewater from the area is carried by sewers to the San Jose Creek Water
Reclamation Plant which is operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. The
proposed project would need to connect to the existing sewer line in West Huntington Drive
which is currently considered to be deficient according to the City’s Public Work’s Department,
and the proposed project would increase this deficiency. However, a Capital Improvement
Project (CIP) design to upgrade the existing sewer pipe from 10” to 12” is scheduled for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2014-2015 while actual construction is planned for FY 2015-2016. The proposed
project would need to participate in (i.e., help fund) this CIP project. If the project participates
in this CIP improvement, it will not cause a need to construct any new water or wastewater
treatment facilities, or expansion of existing facilities because these facilities are adequately
sized to service the site.
Mitigation Measures
UTL-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for either hotel, the developer shall retain a
qualified licensed civil engineer to conduct a sewer study to evaluate before and
after conditions of the project on the City’s existing sewer system (both lateral
and main lines). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Public Works Services Department.
UTL-2 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for either hotel, the developer’s fair
share payment to the City will be determined to help fund upgrading of the
existing sewer in West Huntington Drive included in the City’s 2014-15 Capital
Improvement Project Plan budget, based on the results of the sewer study
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
78
outlined in Mitigation Measure UTL-1. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the City Public Works Services
Department as appropriate.
With implementation of these measures, the proposed project will not have a significant impact
on water and wastewater facilities.
Proposed SPA Analysis. See Response XVII.a above (with Mitigation Measures ULT-1 and
UTL-2) impacts will be less than significant.
c) Require or result in the construction of new
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.c) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project will pay the City’s established
Development Impact Fees (DIF) to help offset costs for new stormwater drainage facilities.
Therefore the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on these facilities, and
no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will pay the same City DIF fees based on impacts
to City services, including affected utilities. With DIF, these impacts will be less than significant.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.d) Original SPSP Analysis. Water service is provided to the project site by the City of
Arcadia Public Works Services Department. The department obtains groundwater from the Main
San Gabriel and Raymond Groundwater Basins. The City also obtains water imported from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) via the State Water Project and the
Colorado River. According to MWD’s website, it will be able to meet the region’s water needs
through 2030. In addition, the proposed project does not meet the threshold to prepare a
project-specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) under SB 610. Therefore, impacts related to
water supply are considered to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will result in a similar amount of water being
consumed compared to the original project as residential condominiums were used as a worst
case estimate for the original project. The revised project will also pay City DIF fees for water
services as appropriate. With DIF, these impacts will be less than significant.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
79
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.e) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project would not increase the area
population or otherwise induce substantial new population growth, as outlined in the previous
Section XIII, Population and Housing. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater are less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. See previous Responses XIII.a and XVII.a above, no mitigation
required and impact will be less than significant.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.f) Original SPSP Analysis. The City of Arcadia does not contract with a particular
landfill. However, the existing hotel contracts with Waste Management to dispose of trash
generated on the site. The proposed project would likely contract with the same company or
with a similar company in the area. The proposed project would generate wastes both during
construction and occupancy of the hotels and condominiums. According to the California
Recycle website, hotel uses generate approximately 10 pounds of trash per person per day, so
the proposed project as a worst case scenario could generate up to 5,270 pounds of trash each
day or 2.6 tons per day which adds to 962 tons per year (5275 persons times 10 pounds per
person per day).
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will generate similar levels of solid waste as
residential condominiums were already used to provide a worst case estimate for Phase 2.
Therefore, impacts would be similar to those of the approved project (less than significant).
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII.g) Original SPSP Analysis. The proposed project would be required to comply with
applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access
5 260 total rooms x 85 percent occupancy x 2 persons per room average= 442 guests plus 85 employees
= 527 persons. This is a worst case estimate.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
80
Act of 1991), and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards,
thereby ensuring that impacts associated with this issue would be considered to be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will generate similar levels of solid waste as
residential condominiums were already used to provide a worst case estimate for Phase 2. The
revised project would be required to comply with local solid waste regulations. Therefore,
impacts would be similar to those of the approved project (less than significant).
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.a) Original SPSP Analysis. The project site already supports an existing hotel and is
fully developed. Development of the proposed project would not result in any significant
impacts to important plants (redwood trees) or wildlife with implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The proposed SPA will generate biological impacts equivalent to
those identified for the original approved project, and so it must implement all of the mitigation
recommended under the original plan. With those measures, potential impacts are less than
significant.
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.)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.b) Original SPSP Analysis. As presented in the discussion of environmental checklist
questions I through XVII, the project has no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less
than significant impact with implementation of mitigation with respect to all environmental
issues. Due to the limited scope of direct physical impacts to the environment associated with
this development project, the project is not expected to have significant cumulative impacts
within the City or surrounding areas.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
81
Proposed SPA Analysis. The Initial Study for the SPSP did not identify a substantial
contribution to cumulative impacts from the approved project. Likewise, the proposed SPA is
not expected to make significant contributions to cumulative impacts within the City, and would
be equivalent to those already identified in the Initial Study for the SPSP (i.e., less than
significant with mitigation).
c) Does the project have environmental effects
that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII.c) Original SPSP Analysis. In general, impacts to human beings from the project may
occur due to air pollutant emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The South
Coast Air Basin is currently designated as a non-attainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5.
Development of the project would contribute to air pollutant emissions on a short-term basis.
The proposed project would be required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing
short-term air pollutant emissions. The purpose of SCAQMD Rule 403 is to reduce the amount
of particulate matter in the atmosphere resulting from man-made fugitive dust sources (see
AIR-1). Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 through AIR-4 will help reduce potential
short- and long-term air pollutant impacts from the project. Adherence to these measures
would help assure that short-term air quality impacts from construction would remain at less
than significant levels.
In addition, potential impacts related to potential hazardous materials and to water resources
have also been addressed in the appropriate sections, including Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and
HYD-1 through HYD-3, respectively. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts
of the project in these areas will remain or be reduced to less than significant levels.
As detailed in the preceding responses, development of the proposed project would not result,
either directly or indirectly, in adverse hazards and noise effects, resulting in a corresponding
less than significant impact to human beings.
Proposed SPA Analysis. The Initial Study for the SPSP did not identify any substantial direct
or indirect impacts of the approved project. This Initial Study has demonstrated the revised SPA
project would have equivalent or similar impacts to those already identified for the SPSP project
(i.e., less than significant with mitigation).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
82
SECTION 4 LIST OF PREPARERS
4.1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Kent Norton, AICP, REA (Project Manager)
Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP (Principal in Charge)
Tony Chung, Ph.D. (Noise/Air Quality/GHG Studies)
Steve Dong (Editor)
Margaret Gooding (Graphics)
4.2 CITY OF ARCADIA
Jason Kruckeberg (Development Services Director)
Lisa Flores (Planning Services Manager)
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
83
SECTION 5 REFERENCES
Arcadia 2010 “City of Arcadia General Plan.” City of Arcadia. November 2010.
BB&N 1987 “Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants,” Bolt, Beranek &
Newman (BB&N), 1987.
CalEPA 2013a “Managing Hazardous Waste,” California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) and Department of Toxic Substances Control, website
accessed August 1, 2013. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste
CalEPA 2013b “Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Program Directory,” California
Department Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), website
accessed August 10, 2013.
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/CUPA/Directory/default.aspx
CALREC Calrecycle website accessed August 12, 2013.
www.calrecycle.ca.gov
Caltrans 2001 “Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences)”.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of
Environmental Analysis, Office of Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous
Waste Management. Technical Advisory, Vibration. TAV-02-01-R9601.
February 20, 2001.
Caltrans 2013 California Department of Transportation Scenic Highway Program,
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), website accessed
August 2, 2013.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm
CAPCOA 2008 “CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act,” California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA),
January 2008.
CARB 2007 “Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California,”
California Air Resources Board (CARB), April 20, 2007.
CCCPP 2013 “Hydrofluorocarbon, Perfluorocarbon, and Sulfur Hexafluoride
Emissions,” California Climate Change Policy and Program (CCCPP),
California Climate Change Portal, website accessed July 21, 2013.
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/1990s_in_depth/page11.html
CCR 2013 “California Health and Safety Code,” Section 7050.5, California Code of
Regulations (CCR). July 2013.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
84
CDC 2013 “Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,” California Department of
Conservation (CDC), Division of Land Resource Protection. Website
accessed July 30, 2013.
CGS 2013 “Fault Mapping in California”. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2005.
Website accessed August 3, 2013.
CIWMB 2013 “Estimated Waste Generation Rates,” California Integrated Waste
Management Board (CIWMB) website accessed on August 2, 2013.
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/default.htm
CWC 2013 “Sections 10750–10756,” California Water Code (CWC), California
Department of Water Resources website accessed August 2, 2013.
DOF 2013 “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State,
2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark.” State of California, Department of
Finance (DOF), Sacramento, California, July 2013.
DOT 2013 “Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49—Transportation, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,” U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), website site accessed August 3, 2013.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?sid=585c275ee19254ba07625d8c92fe925f&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/
Title49/49cfrv2_02.tpl
DTSC 2013 “Hazardous Waste and Substance Site (Cortese) List,” California
Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC), website accessed
August 3, 2013. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public
FEMA 2013 “Flood Limit Data and Mapping,” U.S. Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map Program, website accessed
August 1, 2013.
Geo Inc 2013 “Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment.” Geotechnologies, July 2013.
Geotracker 2013 “Geotracker” database of hazardous material sites maintained by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, website accessed July 25, 2013.
HII 2010 “City of Arcadia Zoning Map.” Hogle-Ireland Inc. 2010.
KHA 2013 “Traffic Impact Assessment, Santa Anita Inn Redevelopment Project.”
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2013.
LSA 2013a “Air Quality Analysis.” (includes greenhouse gas emissions). LSA
Associates, Inc. August 2013.
LSA 2013b “Noise Impact Analysis.” LSA Associates, Inc. August 2013.
NRCS 2013 “Soil Data Mart,” Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, website accessed August 2, 2013.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
85
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=CA675&UseState
=CA and as documented in the “Soil Survey of Los Angeles County,
California” issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, original research dated 1971.
PDA 2012 “Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, For Two Medical
Office Buildings, A General Office Building, and a Four-Level Parking
Structure at 161 Colorado Place and 125 W, Huntington Drive.” Pacific
Design Group. December 2012.
RJLA 2003 “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Continental Assets
Management.” RJL Associates, March 19, 2003.
SCAG 2008 “Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan,” Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), adopted October 2, 2008.
SCAG 2012a “2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy,” Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG),
adopted April 2012.
SCAG 2012b “Growth Forecast Appendix of the Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy” Southern California Association
of Governments, adopted April 2012.
http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/pfinal/SR/2012pfRTP_Growth
Forecast.pdf
SCAQMD 2010 “Air Quality Management Plan,” South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), 2010.
SCAQMD 2013 SCAQMD website accessed August 2, 2013.
www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/LST
TTA 2013 “Hydraulic & Hydrology Calculation.” Tritech Associates, Inc. July
2013.
USEPA 1998 “AP-42 Emission Factors, Natural Gas Combustion,” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), July 1998.
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final
USEPA 2004a “EPA420-P-04-016: Update of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission
Factors for On-Highway Vehicles,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), prepared by ICF Consulting. November 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/ngm
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
86
USEPA 2004b “EPA430-K-03-004, Direct HFC and PFC Emissions from Use of
Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment.” U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), Climate Leaders, October 2004.
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/documents/resources/refrige_acequi
puseguidance.pdf.
USFWS 2011 “HCP/NCCP Planning Areas, Southern California,” U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), October 2011.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
87
SECTION 6 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AESTHETICS
AES-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all
project windows are glazed or otherwise treated to minimize glare on
surrounding roads and properties, to the satisfaction of the Development
Services Director or designee.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
None
III. AIR QUALITY
AIR-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the general contractor for the project
shall prepare and file a Dust Control Plan with the City that complies with
SCQAMD Rule 403 and requires the following during excavation and
construction as appropriate:
Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers’
specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for 10 days or more).
Water active sites at least twice daily (locations where grading is to occur
will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.)
Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or
maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (vertical space between the top of
the load and top of the trailer) in accordance with the requirements of
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the
main road.
Control traffic speeds within the property to 15 mph or less.
AIR-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project developer shall require
by contract specifications that contractors shall utilize California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Tier II Certified equipment or better during the rough/mass
grading phase for rubber-tired dozers and scrapers. Contract specifications
shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall
be reviewed by the City.
AIR-3 Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for each phase, the
project developer shall require by contract specifications that contractors
shall place construction equipment staging areas at least 200 feet away from
sensitive receptors. Contract specifications shall be included in the project
construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
88
AIR-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each phase, the project
developer shall require by contract specifications that contractors shall utilize
power poles or clean-fuel generators for electrical construction equipment.
Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction
documents, which shall be reviewed by the City.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each phase, the developer shall
provide an assessment of existing trees on the areas to be developed. This
tree assessment shall be prepared by a qualified landscape architect and
identify any existing large bushes or trees that can be relocated or preserved
as part of the new development project. The project landscaping plans shall
attempt to preserve existing mature trees onsite to the extent feasible, based
on the tree assessment. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Division.
BIO-2 During project construction in either phase, the existing redwood trees along
the east side of the property shall be protected by being taped or roped off
with appropriate signage so construction equipment will not accidentally
come in contact with and damage or destroy any trees. The trees shall be
sprayed with water at the end of each day when substantial amounts of dust
are generated (e.g., during grading or demolition) to minimize damage from
dust deposition. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Planning Division.
BIO-3 Construction in either phase should not occur during the local nesting season
(estimated February 1 to July 15). If any construction occurs during the
nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist prior to the issuance of a grading permit or removal of any large
trees on the existing hotel property. If the biologist determines that nesting
birds are present, an area of 100 feet shall be marked off around the nest
and no construction activity can occur in that area during nesting activities.
Grading and/or construction may resume in this area when a qualified
biologist has determined the nest is no longer occupied and all juveniles have
fledged. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Division.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
CUL-1 Prior to demolition of any existing hotel buildings on the site, the completed
DPR 523A and 523B forms and a cover memorandum shall be submitted to
the City for filing to officially document the historical assessment for the
Santa Anita Inn. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Planning Division.
CUL-2 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for Phase 1, the applicant shall
install a monument plaque indicating the location of the former Santa Anita
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
89
Inn and its importance in the history of the City of Arcadia. The size,
construction, and location of this plaque shall be up to the discretion of the
City Manager, in consultation with the Planning Division.
CUL-3 If cultural artifacts are discovered during project grading, work shall be
halted in that area until a qualified historian or archaeologist can be retained
by the developer to assess the significance of the find. The project cultural
monitor shall observe the remaining earthmoving activities at the project site
consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b), (c), and (d). The
monitor shall be equipped to record and salvage cultural resources that may
be unearthed during grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal
of the unearthed resources.
If any resources of a prehistoric or Native American origin are discovered, the
appropriate Native American tribal representative will be contacted and
invited to observe the monitoring program for the duration of the grading
phase at tribal expense. Any Native American resources shall be evaluated in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and either reburied at the project site
or curated at an accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once
grading activities have ceased or the cultural monitor determines that
monitoring is no longer necessary, such activities shall be discontinued. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Division.
CUL-4 If paleontological resources (fossils) are discovered during project grading,
work will be halted in that area until a qualified paleontologist can be
retained to assess the significance of the find. The project paleontologist
shall monitor remaining earthmoving activities at the project site and shall be
equipped to record and salvage fossil resources that may be unearthed
during grading activities. The paleontologist shall be empowered to
temporarily halt or divert grading equipment to allow recording and removal
of the unearthed resources. Any fossils found shall be evaluated in
accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and offered for curation at an
accredited facility approved by the City of Arcadia. Once grading activities
have ceased or the paleontologist determines that monitoring is no longer
necessary, monitoring activities shall be discontinued. This measure may be
combined with CUL-3 at the discretion of the City Planning Division.
CUL-5 In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains,
California State Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 dictates that no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to CEQA regulations and PRC §
5097.98. If human remains are found, the LA County Coroner’s office shall
be contacted to determine if the remains are recent or of Native American
significance. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall include
a note to this effect on the grading plans for the project.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
90
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
None
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG-1 To ensure reductions below the expected “Business As Usual” (BAU)
scenario, the project will implement a variety of measures that will reduce its
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To the extent feasible, and to the
satisfaction of the City of Arcadia (City), the following measures will be
incorporated into the design and construction of the SPSP project prior to the
issuance of building permits:
Construction and Building Materials
Recycle/reuse at least 50 percent of the demolished and/or grubbed
construction materials (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation,
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
Use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials that are resource-
efficient and are recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly
way, for at least 10 percent of the project.
Energy Efficiency Measures
Design all project buildings to exceed the 2013 California Building Code’s
(CBC) Title 24 energy standard by 10 percent, including, but not limited to,
any combination of the following:
Design buildings to accommodate future solar installations.
Limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling
distribution system to minimize energy consumption.
Incorporate ENERGY STAR or better rated windows, space heating and
cooling equipment, light fixtures, appliances, or other applicable electrical
equipment.
Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an
integral part of the lighting systems in buildings.
Install light-colored roofs and pavement materials where possible.
Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and
equipment, and control systems.
Install solar lights or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting or
outdoor lighting that meets the 2013 California Building and Energy Code.
Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures
Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the
project and its location consistent with the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape
Ordinance (WELO). The strategy may include the following, plus other
innovative measures that may be appropriate:
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
91
Create water-efficient landscapes within the development.
Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-
based irrigation controls.
Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and
appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets, and waterless
urinals.
Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to
nonvegetated surfaces) and control runoff.
Solid Waste Measures
To facilitate and encourage recycling to reduce landfill-associated emissions,
among others, the project will provide trash enclosures that include
additional enclosed area(s) for collection of recyclable materials. The
recycling collection area(s) will be located within, near, or adjacent to each
trash and rubbish disposal area. The recycling collection area will be a
minimum of 50 percent of the area provided for the trash/rubbish
enclosure(s) or as approved by the waste management department of the
City of Arcadia.
Provide employee education on waste reduction and available recycling
services.
Transportation Measures
To facilitate and encourage non-motorized transportation, bicycle racks shall
be provided in convenient locations to facilitate bicycle access to the project
area. The bicycle racks shall be shown on project landscaping and
improvement plans submitted for Planning Department approval and shall be
installed in accordance with those plans.
Provide pedestrian walkways and connectivity throughout the project.
Fund or participate in some type of shuttle service for hotel guests to access
the City’s downtown Gold Line Station.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
HAZ-1 Prior to demolition of any existing hotel buildings or associated structures, a
qualified contractor shall be retained to survey structures proposed for
demolition to determine if asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead-
based paint (LBP) are present. If ACMs and/or LBP are present, prior to
commencement of general demolition, these materials shall be removed and
transported to an appropriate landfill by a licensed contractor. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Division including
written documentation of the disposal of any ACMs or LBP in conformance
with all applicable regulations.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
92
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
HYD-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall file a Notice of
Intent (NOI) with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board to be
covered under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Construction Permit for discharge of storm water associated with
construction activities. The project developer shall submit to the City the
Waste Discharge Identification Number issued by the State Water Quality
Control Board (SWQCB) as proof that the project’s NOI is to be covered by
the General Construction Permit has been filed with the SWQCB. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
HYD-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit to the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and receive approval
for a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The
SWPPP shall include a surface water control plan and erosion control plan
citing specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion during the
entire grading and construction period. In addition, the SWPPP shall
emphasize structural and nonstructural best management practices (BMPs) to
control sediment and non-visible discharges from the site. BMPs to be
implemented may include (but shall not be limited to) the following:
Potential sediment discharges from the site may be controlled by the
following: sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, fiber rolls, a temporary
debris basin (if deemed necessary), and other discharge control devices.
The construction and condition of the BMPs are to be periodically
inspected by the RWQCB during construction, and repairs would be made
as required.
Area drains within the construction area must be provided with inlet
protection. Minimum standards are sand bag barriers, or two layers of
sandbags with filter fabric over the grate, properly designed standpipes,
or other measures as appropriate.
Materials that have the potential to contribute non-visible pollutants to
storm water must not be placed in drainage ways and must be placed in
temporary storage containment areas.
All loose soil, silt, clay, sand, debris, and other earthen material shall be
controlled to eliminate discharge from the site. Temporary soil
stabilization measures to be considered include: covering disturbed areas
with mulch, temporary seeding, soil stabilizing binders, fiber rolls or
blankets, temporary vegetation, and permanent seeding. Stockpiles shall
be surrounded by silt fences and covered with plastic tarps.
Implement good housekeeping practices such as creating a waste
collection area, putting lids on waste and material containers, and
cleaning up spills immediately.
The SWPPP shall include inspection forms for routine monitoring of the
site during the construction phase.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
93
Additional required BMPs and erosion control measures shall be
documented in the SWPPP.
The SWPPP would be kept on site for the duration of project construction
and shall be available to the local Regional Water Quality Control Board
for inspection at any time.
The developer and/or construction contractor shall be responsible for
performing and documenting the application of BMPs identified in the
project-specific SWPPP. Regular inspections shall be performed on sediment
control measures called for in the SWPPP. Monthly reports shall be
maintained and available for City inspection. An inspection log shall be
maintained for the project and shall be available at the site for review by the
City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
HYD-3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific Standard Urban
Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) shall be submitted to the City
Planning Division for review and approval. The SUSMP shall specifically
identify the long-term site design, source control, and treatment control
BMPs that shall be used on site to control pollutant runoff and to reduce
impacts to water quality to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum,
the SUSMP shall identify and the site developer shall implement the following
site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs as appropriate:
Site Design BMPs
Minimize urban runoff by maximizing maximizing permeable areas and
minimizing impermeable areas (recommended minimum 25 percent of
site to be permeable).
Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets.
Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by planting native
or drought-tolerant trees and large shrubs wherever possible
Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel filtration
pits for low flow infiltration.
Construct onsite ponding areas or retention facilities to increase
opportunities for infiltration consistent with vector control objectives.
Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to the minimum widths
necessary, provided that public safety and a walkable environment for
pedestrians are not compromised.
Direct runoff from impervious areas to treatment control BMPs such as
landscaping/bioretention areas.
Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs are implemented to eliminate the presence of pollutants
through prevention. Such measures can be both non-structural and
structural:
Non-Structural Source Control BMPs
Education for property owners, tenants, occupants, and employees.
Activity restrictions.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
94
Irrigation system and landscape maintenance to minimize water runoff.
Common area litter control.
Regular mechanical sweeping of private streets and parking lots.
Regular drainage facility inspection and maintenance.
Structural Source Control BMPs
MS4 stenciling and signage at storm down drains.
Properly design trash storage areas and any outdoor material storage
areas.
Treatment Control BMPs
Treatment control BMPs supplement the pollution prevention and source
control measures by treating the water to remove pollutants before it is
released from the project site. The treatment control BMP strategy for the
project is to select Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs that promote
infiltration and evapotranspiration, including the construction of infiltration
basins, bioretention facilities, and extended detention basins. Where
infiltration BMPs are not appropriate, bioretention and/or biotreatment BMPs
(including extended detention basins, bioswales, and constructed wetlands)
that provide opportunity for evapotranspiration and incidental infiltration may
be utilized. Harvest and use BMPs (i.e., storage pods) may be used as a
treatment control BMP to store runoff for later non-potable uses.
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING
None
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
None
XII. NOISE
N-1 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits for each phase of the
project, the developer shall prepare a Construction Noise Control Plan and
will submit the plan the City for review and approval. The plan shall include
but will not be limited to the following:
During all project site excavation and grading, contractors shall equip all
construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The project contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so
that emitted noise is directed away from the closest sensitive receptor to
the project site (i.e., the Salvation Army facility at the southwest corner
of the site).
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
95
The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that
will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise
sources and the closest noise-sensitive receptor to the project site (i.e.,
the Salvation Army facility at the southwest corner of the site) during all
project construction.
During all project site construction, the construction contractor shall limit
all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels to
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Saturday.
No construction shall be permitted on Sundays or any of the holidays
listed in AMC Section 4261.
Prior to the start of Phase 2 grading, the developer shall install a wooden
noise barrier along the common boundary of the project and the
Salvation Army rehab facility at the southwest corner of the project site.
This barrier shall be removed upon completion of Phase 2 construction.
N-2 Prior to the issuance of building permit for each phase, the developer shall
demonstrate that all buildings shall have air-conditioning to minimize noise
impacts on hotel rooms along West and East Huntington Drives.
N-3 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the Phase 2 condominium
building, the developer shall install a filled-cell concrete block wall along the
common boundary with the Salvation Army rehab facility at the southwest
corner of the project site. In lieu of the temporary construction wall outlined
in Measure N-1, the developer may install this permanent wall “early” (i.e.,
prior to issuance of occupancy permits for Phase 1) which would eliminate
the need for that portion of Measure N-1.
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING
None
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES
None
XV. RECREATION
None
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
TRA-1 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for either hotel in Phase 1, the
developer shall be responsible for installing an additional signal phase to
accommodate northbound movements exiting the shared hotel driveway and
southbound movements entering the hotel driveway. The developer will also
change the number one lane to a shared through and left turn lane to access
the driveway for the hotels and modify the signal to account for the added
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
LSA CMG1301
96
phases and lanes. These changes shall be made to the satisfaction of and in
coordination with the City traffic engineer.
TRA-2 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for either of the hotels or the
condominiums, the developer shall install bike racks and provide showers and
locker rooms for employees who wish to ride bicycles to work. Bike racks
shall also be installed for project guests in appropriate locations. An
appropriate number of bike racks shall be located near each building to serve
the anticipated number of employees and guests. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
TRA-3 Prior to issuance of building permits for either Phase 1 or Phase 2, the
project plans shall be circulated to Foothill Transit (FT) and the Metropolitan
Transit Authority (MTA) to determine if there is a need for a bus stop on the
south side of Colorado Place in front of the project site (i.e., for either FT
Route 187 or MTA routes 78, 79, or 378). If either agency determines a need
for such a stop, the developer shall install a bus stop to agency specifications
prior to issuance of occupancy permits for the affected phase of
development. This measure shall be implemented for each phase to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
TRA-4 Prior to issuance of occupancy permits for either hotel in Phase 1, the
developer shall demonstrate that the main hotel entrance for Phase 1 has a
circular drive with signage to allow only one way circulation (counter-
clockwise) to provide adequate vehicle queuing lanes for exiting at the traffic
signal. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
UTL-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit for either hotel, the developer shall
retain a qualified licensed civil engineer to conduct a sewer study to evaluate
before and after conditions of the project on the City’s existing sewer system
(both lateral and main lines). This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Public Works Services Department.
UTL-2 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for either hotel, the developer’s fair
share payment to the City will be determined to help fund upgrading of the
existing sewer in West Huntington Drive included in the City’s 2014-15
Capital Improvement Project Plan budget, based on the results of the sewer
study outlined in Mitigation Measure UTL-1. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and/or the City Public
Works Services Department as appropriate.
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix A:
Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 2)
LSA CMG1301 97
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix B:
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Study
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 98
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix C:
Historical Assessment
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 99
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix D:
Geotechnical Constraints
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 100
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix E:
Phase 1 Hazmat Study
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 101
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix F:
Hydrology and Water Quality Studies
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 102
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix G:
Traffic Impact Assessment
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 103
SEABISCUIT PACIFICA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIAL STUDY
Appendix H:
Noise Assessment
(See Staff Report Attachment No. 6)
LSA CMG1301 104
Attachment No. 4
Existing and Proposed Changes to General Plan
Land Use Map
Attachment No. 4
Proposed General Plan Land UseExisting General Plan Land Use
Downtown Mixed Use (30-50 du/acre & 1.0 FAR)
City of Arcadia
Commercial Downtown Overlay (1.03 FAR)
Ü 05001,000Feet
Attachment No. 5
Letter from Marriott, dated November 1, 2016
Attachment No. 5
Mr. Andy Chang
Seabiscuit Development
488 East Santa Clara St. Suite 305
Arcadia, CA 91007
November 1, 2016
Dear Mr. Chang,
This letter is to confirm that Marriott has approved and signed a Franchise Agreement with
Seabiscuit Development to develop a 120 room Residence Inn by Marriott and a 85 room
Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott to be developed at the site of the current Santa Anita Inn.
This agreement was signed by Marriott and Seabiscuit Development on July 31, 2013.
We understand that you are working hard to get the site prepared to commence construction
as soon as possible. If we can be of assistance to this process, please let me know.
Kind regards,
Scott McAllister
Area Vice President
Marriott Lodging Development
cc: Jason Kruckeberg
City of Arcadia – Assistant City Manager
2050 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, CA 92614
Marriott International, Inc.
Hotel Development
Scott McAllister
Area Vice President
480-862-9389 cell