No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 21, 2009'C, F0 CITY OF ARCADIA 000 CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY '•'"'°"'" REGULAR MEETING ••n.s s, swa a TUESDAY, JULY 21, 2009 AGENDA 5:00 P.M. Location: City Council Chamber Conference Room, 240 W. Huntington Drive CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: John Wuo, Mayor /Agency Chair Peter Amundson, Mayor Pro Tem /Agency Vice Chair Roger Chandler, Council /Agency Member Gary Kovacic, Council /Agency Member Robert Harbicht, Council /Agency Member PUBLIC COMMENTS - STUDY SESSION /CLOSED SESSION (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council /Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a "Public Comments" card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the Closed Session /Study Session. In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council /Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City Council /Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction regarding General Plan Revised Land Use Concept. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) to confer with legal counsel regarding potential litigation — one (1) case. 7:00 p.m., City Council Chamber RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION Reverend Thomas Shriver, Emmanuel Assembly of God Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Director ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Kovacic and Wuo REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY /AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION /CLOSED SESSION ITEMS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL 1. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning the proposed items of consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any action taken by the City Council with respect to any Public Hearing item on this agenda, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections which you or someone else raised at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Consideration of an amendment to Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005- 026 for Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita Phase lb to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. (Continued from June 2 and July 7, 2009) Adopt Resolution No. 6676 amending Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 6562 — Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 for the expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita (Phase1 b) at 400 South Baldwin Avenue Recommended Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution b. Appeal of Business License revocation for non - compliance with the City of Arcadia Massage Identification Card and business License requirements by Best Health Center at 25 N. Santa Anita Avenue, #C. Recommended Action: Deny appeal and uphold revocation C. Introduce Ordinance No. 2260 amendinq Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code concerning the Licensing of Massage Therapist Businesses. Recommended Action: Introduce d. Approve the annual Weed Abatement Charge List. Recommended Action: Approve Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) Any person wishing to address the City Council /Redevelopment Agency during the Public Comments period is asked to complete a "Public Comments" card available in the Council Chamber Lobby. The completed form should be submitted to the City Clerk/Agency Secretary prior to the start of the 7:00 p.m. Open Session. In order to conduct a timely meeting, there will be a five (5) minute time limit per person. All comments are to be directed to the City Council /Redevelopment Agency and we ask that proper decorum be practiced during the meeting. State law prohibits the City Council /Redevelopment Agency from discussing topics or issues unless they appear on the posted Agenda. REPORTS FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK 2. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the City Council /Redevelopment Agency request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. Approve the Meeting Minutes of July 7 2009 Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. _Approve the Meeting Minutes of July 7 2009 Recommended Action: Approve C. Adopt Resolution No 6687 approving Program Supplemental Agreement No 009 -N to Encumber Federal Aid Funds for the Rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue from Longden Avenue to Live Oak Avenue Project and authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute this Agreement. Recommended Action: Adopt d. Adopt Resolution No. 6688 amending Resolution No 6670 setting forth legally enforceable speed limits on a portion of Colorado Street. Recommended Action: Adopt e. Adopt Resolution No. 6690 establishing compensation and related benefits for City Council, Executive Management, Safety Management and Management Employees. Recommended Action: Adopt Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Great Cleaning Service Inc. for Janitorial and Porter Services at various City facilities in the amount of $ 229,1730 Recommended Action: Approve Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Califomia, during normal business hours. g. Authorize the City Manager to execute a one (1) year contract extension with D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors Inc. for electrical preventative maintenance at various city facilities in the amount of $115,500. Recommended Action: Approve h. Accept all work performed by Pardess Air for the installation of air handlers for heating and cooling in the Library as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. Recommended Action: Approve i. Accept all work performed by Advanced Solutions for the installation of 75 Catch Basin inserts to capture trash debris to be in compliance with the Trash TMDL Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. Recommended Action: Approve j. Authorize a contract change order to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation in the amount of $21,622 for extraordinary repairs and appropriate the $21,622 from the Capital Outlay Fund. Recommended Action: Approve k. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Office. Depot for office supplies in an amount not to exceed $140,000 for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. Recommended Action: Approve I. Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current agreements and authorize new fiscal terms for fiscal year 2009 -10. Recommended Action: Approve M. Award a Purchase Order to Haaker Equipment Company for one (1) 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper for street cleaning maintenance in the amount of $ 236,226. Recommended Action: Approve n. Award a one (1) year Purchase Order contract extension to Daniels Tire Service for the purchase of tires and accessories for City vehicles in the amount of $ 70,000. Recommended Action: Approve o. Award a one (1) year Purchase Order contract extension to Waterline Technologies. Inc. for the purchase of Sodium Hypochlorite to disinfect the City's domestic water supply in the amount of $45.000. Recommended Action: Approve CITY MANAGER a. Approve the Design and Performance Standards, System Capacity Plan, Monitoring. Measurement and Program Modifications, SSMP Audits and Communication Program Elements of the Sewer System Management Plan required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. Recommended Action: Approve Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. b. Report and discussion regarding Lease Agreement for 2,500 acre feet of Water Production Rights in the Main San Gabriel Basin from Azusa Valley Water Company. Recommended Action: Receive and File ADJOURNMENT The City Council /Redevelopment Agency will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, August 18, 2009, 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk at (626) 574 -5455. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. 007 'm„a1ti0fa STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services DirectoraLK SUBJECT: Study Session: General Plan Update - Review of Revised Land Use Concepts (Continued from July 7, 2009) SUMMARY On July 7, 2009, the City Council held a study session to review the proposed land use concept for the ongoing General Plan Update project. A presentation was provided that outlined the recommendations from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and the Planning Commission. Issues related to residential density, location of potential new housing units, and the requirements established by the State of California through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) were discussed. The Council continued the study session on the General Plan land use concept to the July 21 meeting to further discuss this important matter as well as to complete the presentation from the Staff related to planning and land use in the Downtown area and along Live Oak Avenue. In addition, the Council asked that additional information be brought back from Staff related to how density is determined and additional detail on the State's requirements. DISCUSSION One of the recommendations presented from the Staff, GPAC, and Planning Commission is to change the residential density in the City's existing R -3 zones from 24 units an acre to 30 units per acre. The Council asked Staff to describe the reasoning behind this recommendation. First and foremost, the recommendation has been made to ensure that density is directed into the areas of the City that already support it. The R -3 zoned areas have long been multi - family areas and this land use pattern is supported by the road and infrastructure network in these areas. Secondly, adding this density to the existing R -3 areas provides support for existing commercial districts and retail /service uses that are surrounded by this multi - family housing (i.e Baldwin commercial district and the Downtown area). Finally, as part of the "sites inventory analysis" (sites to meet the RHNA), the City must establish sites that will accommodate the local government's share of the regional housing need for lower- income households. According to AB 2348 this can be done in 2 different ways: July 21, 2009 General Plan Update Page 1 By proving that the RHNA sites identified have development standards that facilitate affordable housing. This is difficult in Arcadia due to the high cost of development and the fact that there is very little development of affordable housing without City intervention (subsides). "Proving" that the RHNA sites can facilitate affordable housing can be done by considering factors such as (but not Limited to): (1) market demand and trends, (2) financial feasibility, and (3) information based on residential project experience within a zone(s). 2. As an alternative, AB 2348 established a process for jurisdictions to credit sites toward the lower- income RHNA by establishing zoning densities that meet thresholds set by the State. The State established "default" density standards that are based in part on population. For jurisdictions (cities /counties) located within a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA, , population of more than 2 million) and have a population of at least 25,000, 30 units per acre has been established as the density appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households. If a local government has adopted the default density standard the State recognizes sites with those density standards as meeting the RHNA for lower- income households. In addition, the Council asked Staff to provide an estimate of the current capacity of the City's R -3 zones (24 units per acre maximum) if these areas were to be built out using the 80% assumption within the General Plan. Without a lot by lot accounting city -wide, this exact number is unknown. However, it is estimated that the existing density of the R -3 areas city -wide is already built at approximately 80% of allowable. There are many developments in the R -3 areas that were built at or above 24 units per acre at a time when unit sizes were smaller, parking regulations were less, and density was greater. These properties, balanced along with newer projects built at less density due to unit sizes and higher parking requirements lead to a conclusion that multi - family in the R -3 zones is currently "built out" at 80% of allowable. Staff will provide some examples of this at the study session. The remainder of the recommendations, including those for the Downtown area and Live Oak Avenue, can be found in attachments. RECOMMENDATION Provide direction on a revised land use concept as the basis of the Environmental Impact Report and the Circulation Analysis for the General Plan Update. Approved By: T � Donald Penman, City Manager Attachment 1: July 7, 2009 Staff Report for Council Study Session Attachment 2: Revised Land Use Alternatives and Study Area Maps Attachment 3: Implications of Land Use Concept July 21, 2009 General Plan Update Page 2 Attachment No. 1 DATE: July 7, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council �% 1 053 0 0 Development Services Department FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director Lisa Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Study Session: General Plan Update - Review of Revised Land Use Concepts BACKGROUND Like all cities in California, the City of Arcadia relies on its General Plan to provide guidance with respect to land use, development and related policy matters. The General Plan addresses the physical development and redevelopment of the City and a variety of topics that ultimately affect the quality of life in Arcadia, including traffic circulation, community design, open space, conservation, parks and recreation, housing, public safety, noise, and economic development. The City's existing General Plan was last updated in 1996 with the Housing Element updated in 2001. Given that thirteen years have passed since the Plan was last updated, it is critical that the plan be updated in a timely manner to ensure it reflects the values and priorities of the community and is in compliance with the State's requirements. The City retained the consulting services of Hogle- Ireland, Inc., and executed an agreement last year to complete the project within a two -year period (this contract was recently cut by 10% per Council direction through the City's budget process). Additionally, a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was established which consists of thirteen (13) members that are comprised of representatives of one City Commission, key stakeholders, and residents of the community. The focus of the GPAC is to provide the varied perspectives of the community. The group has met monthly and played a� critical role in assisting Staff and the consultant with the development of the Plan's goals, objectives and policies. A number of outreach efforts have been made to the community to retain feedback and gain insight on existing and proposed development projects, redevelopment efforts, traffic, housing, and conservation. Specifically, Staff along with the consultant held a July 7, 2009 General Plan Update Page 1 community workshop during the Police Department's Open House and Safety Fair, which was attended by 150 residents. The feedback received at that workshop has been extremely valuable as has input received at a second workshop regarding the Downtown. The Downtown Workshop, which was held at the Arcadia Women's Club, helped define a desired "look and feel" for the downtown area and identified the outstanding concerns of the community. In addition the Staff and the Consultant have presented to or participated in events at the Chamber of Commerce such as Asian Business Night, Government Affairs Forum, and the Business Expo at Westfield. DISCUSSION The GPAC, Staff, and the consultants developed ten "focus areas" to study for land use and worked to establish a vision for the future development of these areas (see Attachment 1). The preliminary land use concept was presented to the City Council and Planning Commission in a joint study session on February 24, 2009. The City Council and Planning Commission agreed that the study areas were appropriate, but felt that the recommendations for mixed -use development were too aggressive overall and would result in too much change to the City. In response to the direction established by the City Council and Planning Commission at this workshop, the General Plan team and GPAC have proposed revisions to limit the mixed use designations in the Downtown and Live Oak Corridor, and removed mixed - use development from three additional areas: 1) Foothill Boulevard; 2) Duarte Road /First Avenue; and 3) Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road. In summary, the proposed changes are: Limit mixed -use designations to Downtown, First Avenue and Live Oak only, and reduce the scope of mixed -use within these areas. 2. Increase the maximum density from 24 to 30 units per acre in existing High Density -zoned areas. The change is consistent with the densities already in place in many high density areas and is intended to serve as an incentive for owners of high density properties to reuse their land. It will also provide a focused opportunity for additional housing. 3. Change the Commercial /Light Industrial designation in the Downtown area to Commercial designation (the area north of Huntington Drive around St. Joseph and La Porte). The new designation is intended to preserve some of the light industrial uses in the downtown area and to encourage small scale office and neighborhood serving commercial uses in this area (for example, offices are not allowed currently and this would allow them). Since the City Council /Planning Commission workshop, both the GPAC and Planning Commission have met twice on the land use revisions. The GPAC met on April 23 to discuss the proposed revisions and agreed with them in concept. On May 12, Staff presented the overall plan process and the proposed land use changes to the Planning July 7, 2009 General Plan Update Page 2 Commission in a study session format. The Commission felt that the concept is appropriate and in -line with the goals and objectives of the City's long term vision. The GPAC met on May 21 to refine and finalize the recommendations and the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 at their June 9 meeting to recommend the attached land use concept to the City Council. Along with the land use concept, the staff and consultant team have completed a build - out analysis and economic feasibility analysis. Attachment 2 provides the maximum capacity of development expected within each study area and city wide, and the resulting residential and nonresidential outcomes that would be expected as a result of full implementation of the land use concept. The build -out capacity was estimated at 80% because it is a realistic "worst case" scenario since many areas of the City are developed at only 65 -70% of the maximum allowed today. Estimating the build -out capacity at 100% is unrealistic because most properties cannot be developed to the maximum permitted intensities and densities due to the existing development standards required such as parking, setbacks, and lot coverage. The proposed land use concept would create a capacity of 2,900 dwelling units and an estimated 8,000 residents by 2035 (considered total buildout). Clearly, not all of these units will develop over this period, but this is the capacity that could be created by this Plan. This estimate is in line with SCAG population and growth estimates for the region and for Arcadia. A total of 78% of this capacity (2280 of the total unit capacity) would be located within existing high density residential (R -3) areas throughout the City. This change in density in the R -3 areas (24 units to 30) is minimal and will not be a significant change in appearance or character since a density of 30 units per acre is already in place in many of the existing high density areas. This change is indicative of the difference between creating capacity for units, and actual development of units. This land use concept would meet all state requirements including the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and recent SB 375 and AB 32 legislation requiring compact development. More importantly, it is a focused land use concept that allows for revitalization opportunity in the Downtown and Live Oak without land use changes to any of Arcadia's single - family neighborhoods. Additionally, it will provide ample commercial and industrial development potential over time to ensure a solid tax base. RECOMMENDATION Authorization to utilize the revised land use concept as the basis of the Environmental Impact Report and the Circulation Analysis for the General Plan Update. Approved By: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Donald Penman, City Manager Revised Land Use Alternatives and Study Area Maps Implications of Land Use Concept July 7, 2009 General Plan Update Page 3 Attachment No. 2 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN REVISED GPAC LAND USE ALTERNATIVES June 2, 2009 Revisions to GPAC Land Use Alternatives' At GPAC meetings #4 (January 29, 2009) and #5 (February 5, 2009), the GPAC recommended land use alternatives for 10 study areas. On February 24, 2009, these alternatives were presented to the City Council (CC) and Planning Commission (PC) in a joint study session. During the meeting, City leaders expressed their reluctance to move forward with the extent of mixed use proposed by the General Plan team and GPAC. For two areas, Downtown and the Live Oak Corridor, the CC and PC did agree that these areas would benefit from land use policies that encourage revitalization and development. This more targeted approach to mixed -use still meets the GPAC's vision for future development. In response to the direction established by the CC and PC, the General Plan team has proposed revisions to the land use alternatives for four areas: Foothill Boulevard, Downtown, Duarte Road /First Avenue, and Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road. In summary, the General Plan team proposes to limit the mixed use designations to Downtown, First Avenue, and Live Oak Avenue. On May 12, 2009, the revised alternatives were presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed with the revisions made to the land use concept since it was originally presented to them. The Commission felt that the concept is appropriate and in -line with the goals and objectives of the City's long term vision. Corresponding maps are included at the end of this document that shows the proposed alternatives. Changes to the Proposed Land Use Designations Nigh Density Residential Designation The residential land use designations have been modified to maintain the same number of residential designations (consistent with the currently adopted General Plan). Instead of the additional residential designation originally proposed (at the highest density range) the proposed land use plan will include the Nigh Density Residential designation (similar to the 1 NOTE: This is a draft document. The land use ideas and alternatives presented in this document represent some of the many ideas that have come from the community and through the General Plan Advisory Committee. They are not planned to be implemented at this time; these alternatives are designed to provoke discussion and the generation of ideas for the future development of Arcadia. Multiple Family Residential 24 designation in the current general plan) which includes a higher maximum density of 30 units per acre (as opposed to 24 units per acre). The designation is being proposed only on properties that are already designated for high density residential uses. This change is consistent with densities already in place in many high density areas and is intended to serve as an incentive for owners of higher density properties to recycle their land. It will also provide a focused opportunity for additional housing while preserving established single family neighborhoods. Downtown Commercial The Commercial designation is proposed in place of the Commercial /Light Industrial designation in the Downtown area only (roughly from Saint Joseph and Santa Clara Streets up to the north side of La Porte Street). The new designation is intended to preserve some of the healthy light industrial uses in the downtown area while encouraging small scale office and neighborhood serving commercial uses. Changes to the Land Use Study Areas Downtown Arcadia Study After further analysis in determining where and at what intensities mixed -use development will be most effective, several changes were made to the Downtown proposed land use plan. Staff and the consultant decided to reduce the areas designated as Downtown Mixed Use (now roughly spanning from the south side of Wheeler Avenue up to Santa Clara Street) to better focus the most intense, mixed use developments around the future Gold Line light rail station. This strategy is intended to focus future development in the areas closest to the proposed rail station and to create a vibrant and walkable neighborhood. A 1.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is proposed for the Downtown Mixed Use area. General Commercial uses are proposed for the properties east of the Mixed Use area. Along Santa Anita Avenue, a height overlay (2.0 FAR) is proposed to allow for a higher and more intense development along the Santa Anita corridor (the area west of Santa Anita Avenue and west of Polyn Place). Higher intensity is also proposed along Huntington Drive (east of Santa Anita) through a 1.0 FAR. Most of the remaining land north of the Downtown Mixed Use areas (roughly from Saint Joseph and Santa Clara Streets up to the north side of La Porte Street) is proposed to be planned for Commercial. This new designation is intended to preserve some of the healthy light industrial uses in the area while encouraging small scale office and neighborhood serving commercial uses. The area along First Street (from south of Huntington Drive to Diamond Street) is designated for Mixed Use 2 which allows mixed uses (residential and commercial) and stand alone commercial uses. Stand alone residential uses are not allowed. The FAR for this area will be 1.0. Live Oak Avenue The Live Oak Avenue corridor alternative has been modified to concentrate mixed use on the south side of Live Oak between Santa Anita and Lenore Avenues and in key locations on the north side of the corridor (NW and NE corners of Live Oak and Santa Anita Avenues). The proposed mixed use areas along the corridor were identified due to the feasibility of future mixed use development on those sites (due to location, lot sizes, or common ownership patterns that may facilitate lot consolidation). Acknowledging well - established land use patterns, at the west end of the corridor (south side of corridor between Welland and El Monte Avenues) key properties are designated for Commercial /Light Industrial while on the east end of the corridor properties (north side of corridor between 4 th and 6 th Avenues) existing high density developments will continue to be designated as Nigh Density Residential. The remaining corridor will be designated commercial uses recognizing the importance of maintaining commercial offerings along this corridor to serve surrounding neighborhoods. Issues related to aesthetics, parking, and revitalization of the corridor as a whole will still be addressed through policies in the General Plan. Los Angeles County Debris Basin Based on discussions at the CC and PC study session, it is unlikely that the proposed land use designation of Open Space - Recreation will be accepted by City leaders: The General Plan team believes it is important to designate this property open space, whether it includes a recreation component or not. The GPAC's vision for recreational uses in the long -term future can be addressed by creating policies that would guide City decision makers in the event that the County was to cease using the property for flood control functions. The proposal is to change the land use designation to Open Space - Resource Protection. Foothill Boulevard The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation on properties along Foothill Boulevard and instead apply the General Commercial designation on those properties (similar to current General Pan land use policy). For the remainder of the commercial uses on the corridor, a General Commercial designation will be applied (no Neighborhood Commercial is proposed). Issues related to revitalization of the corridor can be addressed through policies in the General Plan. In the revised alternative, residential uses abutting the original proposed mixed use properties on the north side of Foothill Boulevard will remain residential (Low Density Residential). Baldwin Avenue Multi Family Neighborhood No change to the original land use alternative is proposed. Santa Anita Park No change to the original land use alternative is proposed. Duarte Road /First Avenue The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation from properties along Duarte Road. Instead, a General Commercial designation is proposed (similar to existing General Plan land use policy). First Avenue is proposed to remain Mixed Use 1. Issues related to aesthetics and revitalization of the corridor as a whole will still be addressed through policies in the General Plan. Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road The land use alternative has been revised to remove the Mixed Use 2 designation from the properties along Baldwin Avenue, south of Naomi Avenue. Instead, a General Commercial designation is proposed to match the properties along the Baldwin Avenue corridor. The General Plan team acknowledges that the Baldwin corridor is fully built out but that the General Plan can include direction on the future of the corridor regarding aesthetics, maintenance, parking, and marketing. In the residential areas, the proposed increase in density to key areas of the residential neighborhoods has been changed. Instead of the additional residential designation originally proposed (at the highest density range) the proposed land use plan will include the High Density Residential designation (similar to the Multiple Family Residential 24 designation in the current general plan) which includes a higher maximum density of 30 units per acre (as opposed to 24 units per acre). In this study area this translates into no land use changes for the residential areas. Las Tunas Drive No change to the original land use alternative is proposed. Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area No change to the original land use alternative is proposed. It Sierra Madre Pasadena ava a s ,a LOS S County Monrovia .� 1 Ntt aA :\ i FRWr Irwindale LAND USE STUDY AREAS 1. Los Angeles County Debris Basin 2. Foothill Boulevard 3. Baldwin Avenue Multi- Family Neighborhood 4. Santa Anita Park 5. Downtown Arcadia 6. Duarte Road/First Avenue 7. Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road 8. Las Tunas Drive 9. Live Oak Avenue 10. Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area lbrnple City olatsasa as 01' ..I� � E3 Monte PREFERRED LAND USE Residential Estate (up to 2 dufac) Mixed Use 2(22-30 dWac & 1.0 FAR) Wry Low Density Residential (2 -4 du /ac) Downtown Mixed Use (3050 du/ac & 1.0 FAR) «• Law Density Residential (4.6 du/ac) Florae Racing M Medium Density Residential (6.12 lilac) Conlmencdal/Light Industdai (0.6 FAR) W Flgh Density Residential (12- 30duiac) Ptblimfinstitutional M Comnercial(0.5FAR) Open Space - OutdoorRecreation M Regional Commercial (0.5 FAR) Open Space - ResoucesProtection %a Mixed Use 1(2230 dutac & 1.0 FAR) Rail Right -cf-Way Hurltington Drive Overlay (1.0FAR) Santa Arita Avenue Overlay (2.0 FAR) Mixed Use Note: Mixed Use FAR Is for non - residential uses. Mixed Use I allows for stand -alone residential uses. •• Mixed Use 2 requires the Inclusion of a commerical component for all projects. Stand alone residential uses are not allowed. •'• Downtown Mixed Use allows for mixed use and stand -alone residential or commercial uses. NOTE Ths is a dremdocunent. The land use ideas nd alteratives peaented In this docurtantrepresemsane ot the mny ideas that hew corm fromthe csmrtun ty and throuyr the Generel Plan Advisory comnitee. They are not pannedlo be irnplanented atthis 1"; these alternatives are destined topm%ohe discussion and the generation of Ideas for the future dewlupment ofAsradia. STUDY AREAS Arcadia General Plan Update May 21, 2009 a m �� I LAM . 4 C9 a C3 _ _CI_ [ :D Z --A « Z_ a ��. ■ a z La L _4 q j © > l u � � ■ § « $ e z b - w _ La AV _CI_ �.�11���� z� _ { 2 I 2 � ■ i § � ■22�a� 2§k2$ f 2 _ f ## # §$ kkkQ�■ /. 2a«■;■ #. #tE 'L LL A t $$E MEO If � 0 0 0 - � 2 0 ) k L o � a. � < /\ � ■{ <% / ei) !!f ��7� ! {|� 22 8 2 o$ 2 c o n 12 % ma • ! I I U § _ ƒ !. -- 6 ES = § §�\ E_ {! §#� ■��■4 _&> ! � a / au112 ;R% l2kl �! � [ :D Z --A « Z_ a ��. ■ a z La L _4 q j © > l u � � ■ § « $ e z b - w _ La AV _CI_ �.�11���� z� _ { 2 I 2 � ■ i § � ■22�a� 2§k2$ f 2 _ f ## # §$ kkkQ�■ /. 2a«■;■ #. #tE 'L LL A t $$E MEO If � 0 0 0 - � 2 0 ) k L o � F LL 4 4 � � > � z ■ Ld � « ■ § Ld ■ � I u 2 � a d 4 z 9 j 4 & � .j x « x ■ x . ■ L o � 2� L A a © z .k k � e . z P - x . � L / ;\ _ LL to / § of e� ƒo . \ $, §\ � J$ �© | eo f -ql�3; k Co to k kIL0 0 \ \ #� \�2 2 _(� f 2e �f}f\ �_ a ■ � ƒ/\ !#277 ■A � c - § -mo c-@_, !B§e■© -� a�c2cE2c V J � . u � - ��� 2& ■m2 =a= l22 2R ) Z. 22 � \2 !!!§$2 § § §��■ �m mLLLL LL � �_q_q 2L cLo E \ \\ / � /k � !;! � §! |' | { +! ��j� ! ;f! � �E |§ V R Q . , ! kk \/ !! � &$ !!) ,!! :s! s , � 0 0 - a I § J § 0 w � �4 I LAM 4 � � > � z ■ � « ■ 0 ■ Ld & a : � � � � � � � . ` � Ld > ■ D z q C ■ �® ■ � x . $ L a A _« q 06 « W A k k � ■ . z � � � � � � \ J■ � �) /k a] ° i �§�$2CL 2�■E§?7£I\ 0 \ m ■ / £� \\} LL § #� ■2A ■A moo c ) S to § .2 ■22«a� 222227 ( k it 72/\� 3x# Z a±t5y AM E k § §�7■ � JIX #f ■�!° (2/ §s2 LL cm CD \;I/ � 'a ;.-6 (�k {a ;!f! }! §} ƒ} k) !§k� ! :|§ ;a �v , ! \} ■� ) §� �!§ :ss ■ . 0 0 0 - � I 0 0 -0 0 9 0 � 0 I u 4 � � 4 LAI a 4 Z 0 F, � � « d La a D O a 44 I N « � IL La 0 ■ � � . � > � z ■ Lo � « ■ Ld LU ■ LL. IL � § 4 4 . -� � z LM La � > © Lm u z k k � � z . � _ X . � / L \k \ &§ /\ �§ !2 /d / 2�■E»72it / k2oƒ 2j & \ { , / i ƒƒj) » CL E � ��i777co a !#�t�; ■A L k�k)RKf 1U f � k R k � 2 � o � f LE ■!2 =■q 22k2A k \ _& '60 §a § ■ ■■ �mwLLLL LL $LL - fff�� E ��ef� ■�/ � /k .6 (\ \ o_ ! ■| ! /) }) { �) )\ k) ! §kk 2 5 ,■�E . ! \} $! 7 ■ , m 0 0 _ � I z 0 A 2 0 � � Attachment No. 3 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS OF LAND USE POLICY May 21, 2009 Implications of Proposed Land Use Policy Tables 1 and 2 summarize the land use distribution, expected level of development anticipated within each study area and citywide, and the resulting residential and nonresidential outcomes that would be expected as a result of full implementation of land use policy. Table 2 shows the difference in development levels when comparing the proposed General Plan land use plan to: a) existing, on- the - ground land uses, and b) the currently adopted General Plan land use policy. Implementation of the proposed General Plan Land Use Plan (as of May 21, 2009) is assumed to be 80 percent of the maximum potential. This assumption accounts for the fact that many areas of Arcadia will not change over the next 20 years, and areas such as single - family neighborhoods have not been developed to the maximum potential allowed under General Plan land use policy. Based on the proposed land use changes and the 80 percent build -out assumption, calculations indicate a capacity for approximately 2,945 additional dwelling units, 8,110 new residents (assuming the average household size described below), and about 2.6 million additional square feet of non - residential development. These estimated land use statistics for the proposed General Plan are consistent with population and household forecasts established by SCAG in 2008. While these figures indicate an increase in capacity, the actual level of development the City experiences during the life of the General Plan will depend upon market demand and economic conditions. As such, development levels may be lower or higher than these estimates. Assumptions used to estimate expected level of development and a brief summary of the economic analysis is included at the end of this document. 1 NOTE: This is a draft document. The land use ideas and alternatives presented in this document represent some of the many ideas that have come from the community and through the General Plan Advisory Committee. They are not planned to be implemented at this time; these alternatives are designed to provoke discussion and the generation of ideas for the future development of Arcadia. Q K E v O N d C a N N v N w' W N C v J C v v L C , 0 V v v V V Q P � n O u n d � O O N d y ° ° ;-2 2: 2 3 Q ?� O o c .. 8 O � L w�a� P O m L r O C 0 N co O j 4 � p W a O ¢ 0 L r u C7 o S Ln l7 u', v ? �� Q � 4 •Y ♦ ° U $ $ o. s 7 � s� p N O N ° a ° ° u A •? $i c o o u � P V l' O` 0 O ; „ 1 1 g� V pT° ° P ,Q °0 r m o a o e N ni 'c N � � P u 4- C_ cli N Q � m2 cQ� ° ao °°= y c o a w p c . y_ s p,L by F c n` o ,E o - s ? aun` T zu o'R cg 0 M 19 cu- a d s o„ = t m °c M o E ' o a m E o N CI E o `o o° S o a o° E o N � f u o E y , e U a e d O. y d ° m y F 5 E o Q p 9 LL � c 3 c o r y ° ° ;-2 2: 2 3 � ; o c .. w�a� s` p 0 O p o 0 W m m L r O C 0 N j 4 � p W u V c O ¢ 0 L r u C7 o S $E d$'oy o L a y ° v ? �� Q � 4 •Y ♦ ° U $ $ o. 7 � p o N ° a ° ° u •? $i c o o u o ° o 'a l' O` 0 O ; „ p V pT° ° °u'"c� cddoa C m o o e 1 o a d E m d rn�' ° o 'c N u 4- C_ cli Q � m2 cQ� ° ao °°= y c o a w p c . y_ s p,L by F c n` o ,E o - s ? aun` zu o'R cg mc = M 19 cu- a d s o„ = t m °c o E ' o a m E o W o iy o ." E o `o o° S o a o° E L o. e o. u m o. u ° o § c F cd�ncv o N u �y U W O IOL °I C O � �tBi a� y v 4 � $ i £ 0 aid ° S 3u �.c Y m O� 0 `y O o M F m d E S E Summary of Changes Affecting Build -out Estimates Los Angeles County Debris Basin Study Area No changes are proposed for this study area. Foothill Boulevard Study Area The reduction in dwelling units (between existing and proposed land use policies) is due to re- designating residential uses to reflect actual uses today. For example, under currently adopted land use policy, the Country Oaks Circle neighborhood is a single - family neighborhood designated Multiple Family Residential 24. Re- designation is proposed to a lower density to reflect actual uses and development densities (Medium Density Residential). The increase in dwelling units between the proposed land use policy and actual on- the - ground land uses is mostly due to a large church property that is designated High Density Residential and a property that is designated High Density Residential but is currently developed with a commercial use. In these instances, the proposed land use plan shows unit capacity while in actuality (on- the - ground), no units currently exist. Baldwin Avenue Multi- Family Neighborhood Study Area The change in this area is due to the change in maximum density from 24 to 30 units per acre. The uses are not changing, but the new density indicates a slight increase in capacity should individual property owners choose in the future to redevelop their properties. Santa Anita Park Study Area No changes are proposed for this study area. Downtown Arcadia Study Area The increase in units is due to the new Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) designation, which allows much higher densities (from 30 to 50 units per acre). The increase in square footage is attributable to the higher FARs allowed in Downtown (from 1.0 along Huntington Drive and in the Downtown core and 2.0 along Santa Anita Avenue). Duarte Road /First Avenue Study Area The slight increase in dwelling units between existing and proposed land use policies is due to the increase in maximum density for the mixed use designation (from 24 to 30 units per acre). The increase in square footage between existing and proposed land use policies can be attributed to the increase in FAR applied to the MU designation (from 0.4 to 1.0). The increase in dwelling units between the proposed land use policy and on- the - ground uses is due to the fact that land with residential potential (designated for mixed use) is currently developed with commercial uses (no existing dwelling units). The increase in square footage between the proposed land use policy and on- the - ground uses is due to the commercial designation applied to vacant parcels and some residential uses along Duarte Road. While these properties 2 are not currently developed with commercial uses, General Plan land use policy indicates the potential for commercial uses. Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road Study Area The increase in dwelling units overall is due to the change in maximum density from 24 to 30 units per acre for the High Density Residential designation (HDR). The uses envisioned by the General Plan are not changing, but the higher density indicates an increase in capacity should individual property owners choose to redevelop their properties. Las Tunas Drive Study Area The slight increase in square footage between proposed and actual on- the - ground uses is attributable to one parcel currently developed as a parking lot (and having no commercial development). There is no change anticipated between existing and proposed General Plan land use. Live Oak Avenue Study Area The increase in dwelling units is due to the expansion of the mixed use designation along the corridor and to the change from mixed use to High Density Residential for the block of high- density residential uses (apartments) on the north side of Live Oak Avenue between 4th and 6th Avenue. The increase in square footage is due to the higher FAR proposed for Mixed Use 2 (1.0). Lower Azusa Road Reclamation Area Study Area The increase in square footage overall is attributable to the increase in FAR for the Commercial /Light Industrial (C /LI) designation (from 0.45 for the existing Industrial designation to 0.6 for the C /LI designation). City (exclusive of Study Areas) The increase in units can be attributed to raising the maximum permitted density high density residential uses from 24 to 30 units per acre. The increase in non - residential square footage can be attributed to an increase in intensity (FAR) for the mixed use and C /LI designations. Sphere Of Influence The change in units is due to some minor re- assignment of right -of -way (i.e. streets) and some small refinements to the land use plan. Z California law requires that a General Plan "cover the territory within the boundaries of an adopting City ... as well as any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs) are responsible for delineating sphere of influence boundaries that are updated every 5 years. Delineating a sphere of influence discourages competition among agencies for developable land, promotes efficient and effective service delivery for cities and special districts. 3 Land Use Assumptions Over time, as properties transition from one use to another or property owners choose to rebuild, land uses and intensities are anticipated to gradually shift to align with proposed General Plan land use policy. Given the almost built -out character of Arcadia, significant development activities may not occur over the life of this General Plan and certainly, not all properties will be developed to the maximum permitted intensities and densities. With this in mind, the following assumptions have been established (see Table 3). Density /Intensity To define a realistic build -out scenario, assumptions about expected density and intensity levels were established. Considerations used to project future conditions included examining established land use patterns and past land use development trends. For the single - family residential designations expected densities were derived based on a survey of existing densities. Current conditions generally represent anticipate future conditions, as very few changes are expected to occur in single - family neighborhoods over the life of the General Plan. For multi - family designations expected densities (dwelling units per acre, or du /ac) are based on 80 percent of maximum allowable density, as units built within the past 20 to 30 years are not expected to be replaced, and physical conditions and provision of on -site amenities will limit the ability of some redeveloped properties to achieve the maximum densities. Similarly, for non - residential uses, intensity (floor -to -area ratio, or FAR) is based on 80 percent of maximum allowable PAP. Maximum permitted FAPs may not be achieved on individual properties given development standards and amenity requirements (for example, easements, access, parking, landscape, and buffering requirements). For the mixed use designations, 80 percent of maximum allowable density and intensity (PAP) was used for the estimates. Projected Number of Dwelling Units The projected number of dwelling units indicated Tables 1 and 2 have been calculated for each land use designation that permits residential uses. Dwelling units projections are calculated by multiplying the acres of residential land by the a SFR -2, SFP -4, and SFR -6 in the current General Plan, and Residential Estate, Very Low Density Residential, and Low Density Residential in the proposed General Plan 4 MFP -12 and MFP -24 in the current General Plan, and Medium Density Residential and High Density Residential in the proposed General Plan 4 'For the single - family residential designations, expected densities were derived based on a survey of existing densities. For multi - family designations, expected densities (dwelling units per acre, or du /oc) are based on 80 percent of maximum allowable density "Expected density for MFR24 and Commercial /Multiple Family Mixed Use is based on 22 du /ac. While 24 du /ac is the maximum allowed, a density bonus is required to obtain 24 du /ac For the mixed use designations, 80 percent of maximum allowable density and intensity (FAR) was used for the estimates. expected density for that designation. Dwelling units are also assumed to occur within the mixed use designations. Acreage within the mixed use designations is distributed between residential and non - residential uses. This distribution is based on expected initial development patterns but will ultimately be guided by market demand and economic conditions. Estimated Square Footage Estimated square footage accounts for all building area of non - residential buildings, meaning commercial, office, and public or institutional uses. The projection for non- residential development is calculated by multiplying the land use acres for each land use designation by the expected PAP. The result is then converted from acres to square feet'. This yields the estimated square feet. Estimated Population Estimated population is calculated by multiplying the projected number of dwelling units by two factors: number of persons per household (2.872 in 2008) and the occupancy rate (95.9% in 2008). The number of persons per household and the occupancy rate will change year to year, but for projection purposes, the City has used the most current estimates (2008) from the California Department of Finance, Demographic Unit for the City of Arcadia. Economic Analysis As part of the General Plan program, a preliminary economic analysis was conducted by Keyser Marston and Associates (KMA) to evaluate the financial feasibility of development prototypes at key locations within the City. The three prototype development projects were located in two of the study areas, Downtown and the Live Oak Avenue corridor. The analysis examined the financial feasibility of development projects under current land use policy and development standards, and a scenario that reflected proposed increases to the intensity (height, coverage, residential density). Factors considered in the analysis included lot coverage and height (PAP), residential density, parking and development standards, development costs, revenue (income from rents and unit sales), and estimated investment returns. The intent of the analysis was to examine whether current developments standards were adequate to encourage development in the City and if proposed land use polices would improve or somehow affect the financial feasibility of new development. The hypothetical development projects include: • Site *1 (Downtown study area): office building located along Santa Anita Avenue • Site *2 (Downtown study area): mixed use development located in close proximity to the future Gold Line Station 5 One acre equals 43,560 square feet. 6 ■ Site #3 (Live Oak Avenue study area): mixed use development along Live Oak Avenue The resulting analysis included several conclusions: Curr development standards do not encourage de Existing development standards and intensity (height, lot coverage) are considered adequate to encourage development of undeveloped (vacant) land. The cost to purchase improved (developed) land is significantly greater than the cost to purchase undeveloped land and there are very few undeveloped properties in Arcadia. Due to the high cost of purchasing improved land, it is difficult for properties to redevelop at the current densities. Projects at propos ed intensit ma need incentives to be feasible Nigher intensities (PAP) did result in higher land values (the more you can develop on a site, the more valuable it is). The intensity proposed in the General Plan may not be high enough to encourage redevelopment of improved land given the cost of developments, rents (commercial), and parking in the City. For example, in some areas even a higher PAP for retail uses does not improve project feasibility as more developable space translates to additional parking spaces required. A reduction in parking standards may be necessary to make new development feasible in the City. Parking requirements in the city (5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial uses and 2 resident spaces plus 1 guest parking space per dwelling unit) negatively impact the financial feasibility of a project. Due to the amount of parking required, many developments would need to construct either a parking structure or underground parking both of which are prohibitively expensive. Rents for retail businesses in Arcadia are not high enough to offset the high cost of structured or underground parking. These businesses or developments would need to charge very high rents to balance out the high cost of parking. Changes in the City's parking standards are crucial to facilitating new developments. Additionally, alternative parking arrangements (such as creating parking districts [and parking fees] in commercial areas, allowing alternative parking requirements for areas close to the future Gold Line station, developing City -owned parking facilities, or allowing tandem parking in residential developments) can help facilitate new development. Alternative sources of funding may make development more feasible. Many developers in the San Gabriel Valley have access to off -shore capital and may approach development from a different perspective than domestic developers. For example, many developers using off -shore capital are willing 7 to accept lower returns on their investments and have a longer tolerance for losses in new developments (they have more patience when waiting for a development to become profitable). This development community may be a source of redevelopment opportunities in the City. City resources such as redevelopment agency assistance may also be needed for key projects that can spur development in some of the analyzed areas. City and other sources of funding can be used to offset the high cost of development. Based on the results of this analysis, the General Plan team has requested an additional analysis for an alternative scenario that takes into consideration higher intensity (FAR) and lower parking requirements. This information will be used to test the types of changes needed in the proposed land use and development standards to encourage new development in the City. 8 DATE: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director D k_ Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 2005 -026 AND CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 6562 FOR WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA MALL PHASE 1B EXPANSION TO INCREASE THE RESTAURANT SPACE FROM 10,000 SQUARE FEET TO 23,500 SQUARE FEET AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 6676 SUMMARY On June 2, 2009, the City Council held a public hearing and reviewed Westfield's request to amend Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 and Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet at Westfield Santa Anita Mall Phase 1b. At the hearing, speakers from the community as well as speakers representing Caruso Affiliated presented their concerns about the above referenced matter to the City Council. The primary issue raised by the speakers in opposition was that the appropriate environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to permit Westfield to convert 13,500 square feet of retail space to restaurant space in Phase lb should be a Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and not a Categorical Exemption. The City Council continued the hearing until July 7, 2009 to allow time to review response letters and comments made at the hearing and to further analyze the environmental determination. At the July 7 hearing, the Council considered a continuance request from Westfield and a continuance request from Caruso Affiliated and voted to continue the public hearing to the July 21, 2009 meeting. BACKGROUND Several speakers at the June 2, 2009 hearing raised the issue of whether the environmental determination of a Categorical Exemption was correct. In addition to the testimony, the City Council also received a letter from Caruso Affiliated regarding concerns on the CEQA determination and a letter from Santa Anita Park stating that they may not continue to lease their parking spaces to Westfield during the holiday season. At the hearing, the Council received two letters from Matrix Environmental (representing Westfield) responding to the concerns raised in the letters from Caruso Affiliated and Santa Anita Park and providing an analysis of why the proposed conversion would have no new environmental impacts. Following the hearing, on June 9, another letter was received from Caruso Affiliated affirming their belief that an ND or MND is the proper CEQA response (refer to Attachment No. 1 for all of this correspondence). The City Council continued the public hearing to the July 7 meeting to allow time to read and understand the response letters that had just been received, and to allow staff and the City Attorney further opportunity to review the City's CEQA determination and decide whether it is the appropriate conclusion for the proposed amendment. Prior to the July 7 hearing date, another piece of correspondence was received related to the environmental documentation for the project from Joel Moskowitz, attorney for Santa Anita Associates (Attachment 2). This letter again asserts the inapplicability of the Class 1 CEQA exemption. This letter has been reviewed by Staff and the City Attorney. A second continuance, this one at the request of Westfield, was granted at the July 7 hearing which moved the public hearing to July 21, 2009. The City is responsible for determining the appropriate level of environmental review under CEQA, and as stated at the hearing and in the original staff report, staff and the City Attorney continue to conclude that a Categorical Exemption for the proposed amendment is proper. The key consideration of a Class 1 Exemption (Existing Facilities) is "whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." In this case, the existing use is the entire Westfield Santa Anita Mall, which has been fully analyzed in the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR) certified in 2000 and the Addendum to the EIR approved in 2007 for Phase lb (Addendum). This represents approximately 1.3 million square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) designated as a Regional Shopping Center per the Arcadia Municipal Code. Regional Shopping Centers offer a mix of uses such as retail, general commercial, and restaurants. It is the City's conclusion that this change of 13,500 square feet of GLA from retail to restaurant is negligible. The Regional Shopping Center use classification is designed to "blend" land uses; for example Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 July 21, 2009 — Page 2 there is a single parking requirement calculation for the entire use as opposed to each individual use classification (i.e., retail, restaurant, etc...) being allocated its own unique parking requirement. Despite this initial conclusion, staff requested a traffic and parking study be completed by the applicant, which was attached with the original staff report and is attached again to this report. The traffic and parking study also concluded that there would be no new impacts as compared with those impacts analyzed in the 2007 Addendum. Staff reviewed the study and agrees with this conclusion. As a result of the information submitted originally, and following review of all of the letters and information submitted to the City Council, the City finds that the proposed amendment would not result in any new significant environmental impact beyond what was identified previously in EIR and Addendum and that a Class 1 categorical exemption under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15301 is appropriate. DISCUSSION Should the City Council conclude, following a public hearing and any additional testimony, that proceeding with a categorical exemption is inappropriate or undesirable for any reason; Staff and the City Attorney recommend that the applicant prepare a second Addendum to the 2000 EIR. An ND or MND, as suggested by the letters received from Caruso Affiliated and /or Santa Anita Associates, LLC. is not required under CEQA. Another question raised by the Council at the June 2 meeting related to what happens if Westfield cannot secure an appropriate number of off -site parking spaces during the holiday periods to cover the demand for parking spaces. This is NOT a current condition of approval nor is it a mitigation measure of the project. Providing off -site parking spaces during the holidays was something that Westfield offered as part of the 2007 Addendum as a "project feature" to address the on -site deficiency of parking as it relates to demand on Saturdays in December. Because the City does not regulate based on demand, this was not originally memorialized as a condition of approval as it is not considered an impact. The Planning Division does not regulate based on demand because this would lead to an extreme overabundance of parking for commercial or retail sites on nearly every day of the year. However, Westfield has agreed to provide an off -site parking management plan as a project feature, so, if the Council concludes it is important, Staff has suggested an additional Condition that could be added to the Phase lb approval that memorializes this issue and requires it. Finally, another issue has arisen since the June 2 meeting. Staff was contacted by staff from Caltrans on June 15, 2009 regarding Westfield's permit for adding an additional lane to Foothill Boulevard /Baldwin Avenue West intersection. This intersection was a mitigation measure from the original EIR that was re- worded as part of the Phase lb approval as Condition No. 2. The permit from Caltrans for this Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 July 21, 2009 — Page 3 work was originally issued in December, 2007 and was extended in February of 2009. The expiration date for this permit was June 30, 2009 and Caltrans approved another extension to begin work. Work has begun on the off ramp and Westfield has represented that this work will be completed by September 30, 2009. This issue is important to the City. Although work has now commenced on this project, in the past Westfield has not approached this work with any sense of urgency. To ensure that this work is completed in a timely manner, Staff recommends updating the original condition of approval on this issue. The original condition of approval from the Phase 1 b approval reads as follows: 2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, the Developer shall provide (a) proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation measure established for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) or (b) evidence of a bond in an amount and form and with' a surety approved by the Development Services Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; provided, however, that if within two years after issuance of a building permit for Phase 1b, Caltrans fails to issue a permit for the improvement, the City may direct the Applicant to contribute the then current cost of the improvement into a City fund for alternative transportation mitigation improvements in the City's sole and absolute discretion, which payment shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any and all other mitigation measures. In this event, this condition shall be deemed satisfied upon payment of the improvement costs into the City fund. Westfield provided proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit on December 5, 2007, prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy. In addition, Westfield also provided a bond to cover this work. Thus, the condition had been met as written. The additional clause in the original condition that provides an alternative approach should Caltrans reject the mitigation is now irrelevant as Caltrans has issued the permit and work has begun. To better address the situation, Staff recommends that Condition #2 be revised as written below. There are no new impacts identified, this revision simply updates the language of the condition. The approval of ADR 2005 -026 included 33 conditions of approval. The following proposed conditions would be amended or added as shown below: 2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new restaurant use within Phase 1b which causes square footage of all restaurant uses in Phase lb to exceed, in the aggregate, 10,000 square feet of GLA, evidence deemed satisfactory by the City's Development Services Director or designee, in his /her reasonable discretion, of completion of the mitigation measure established for the intersection of Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 July 21, 2009 — Page 4 Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) shall be provided to the City's Development Services Director. 9. Restaurant uses within Phase 1b shall be limited to a maximum of 23,500 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which is to include the outdoor dining. 34. The applicant (Westfield) shall submit to the City's Development Services Director an off -site parking management plan by October 15 each year, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter, commencing October 15, 2009, to address parking demand during late November through early January holiday period peak hours, as defined below. The parking management plan shall include the following: The number of off -site parking spaces required for the Westfield Santa Anita Mail to address parking demand during Mall holiday period peak hours, which peak hours ( "Peak Hours ") are defined herein to include the Friday after Thanksgiving, the day following Christmas, the day following New Year's Day and every weekend (Saturday and Sunday) from the Friday after Thanksgiving up to and including the day following New Year's Day (the period from the Friday after Thanksgiving through the day following New Year's Day is herein referred to as the "Holiday Period "), based on the amount of space within the Mall. 2. The location of the required number of parking spaces to meet parking demand for the Peak Hours. 3. Copies of fully executed agreements with the owners or tenants of properties on which off -site parking spaces are provided for the Peak Hours (which may be redacted to exclude economic terms between Westfield and said owners or tenants). 4. A transportation plan identifying the shuttle operator, and the schedule and hours of shuttle operation and shuttle stops for those off -site parking spaces located beyond reasonable walking distance to the Mall for the Peak Hours. 5. The parking management plan shall be in such form and shall have such content so as to be approved in writing by the City's Development Services Director or designee, in his /her reasonable discretion, on or before November 15 each year, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter. For each day past November 15, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter, that the City's Development Services Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 July 21, 2009 — Page 5 Director determines, in his /her reasonable discretion, that he /she cannot approve the parking management plan, or any revised plan, submitted by the applicant (Westfield), Westfield shall pay to the City for the Holiday Period commencing during 2009, one thousand dollars ($1,000) to compensate the City for any and all damages and consequences incurred by the City due to increased traffic and lack of adequate off -site parking during the Holiday Period, which the applicant (Westfield) and the City agree would otherwise be difficult to quantify. The daily sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) shall be increased by four percent (4 %) each year over the prior year's daily sum, commencing for the Holiday Period beginning the Friday following Thanksgiving in 2010. The City shall use good faith in determining the adequacy of the plan. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve Resolution No. 6676 amending Architectural Design Review (ADR 2005 -026) and Condition 2 of City Council Resolution No. 6652 to require completion of the mitigation measure for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West, Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6652 to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet, which includes outdoor dining, and add Condition No. 34 related to provision of a holiday parking management plan for the Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue. Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager Attachments: 1. Letters received from Caruso Affiliated (dated May 13, 2009 and June 9, 2009), Santa Anita Park (dated May 28, 2009), Westfield and Matrix Environmental (dated June 2, 2009), and Scott Sayre (dated June 2, 2009) 2. Letter received July 2, 2009 from Joel Moskowitz, Santa Anita Associates, LLC. 3. City Council Staff Report, dated June 2, 2009 4. City Council Resolution No. 6676 5. City Council Resolution No. 6562 (Original Resolution for Phase 1 b) 6. CEQA Documentation — Notice of Exemption 7. Request from Westfield dated March 23, 2009 8. Traffic and Parking Report dated March 4, 2009 Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 July 21, 2009 — Page 6 Attachment No. 1 CITYROF ARCADIA MAY 17 2009 CITY MANAGER May 13, 2009 John Wuo, Mayor Peter Amundson, Mayor Pro Tem Roger Chandler, Council. Member Robert C. Harbicht, Council Member Gary A Kovacic, Council Member Don Penman, City Manager City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 RE: Amendment to Architectural Review No. ADR 2005 -026 and City Council Resolution No. 6562 for the Phase 1b expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue. Dear Don: It has very recently come to our attention that Westfield has applied for an amendment to the conditions of approval of its Phase lb expansion, including an increase in the allowable square footage of restaurant use to more than double the current allowed limit. Moreover, Westfield would like Arcadia to grant a categorical exemption from environmental review of this intensification of a non - retail use under CEQA, claiming this is a "minor alteration of an existing facility ". This action occurs only a few weeks from the opening of the very same mall expansion. After reviewing the application materials submitted by Westfield, and the City Staff Report dated May 12 "', 2009, we have several specific comments that I will outline here. I must emphasize at the outset, however, that the "exemption" process that Westfield has chosen leaves us little time to fashion fully detailed technical comments. 1. Westfield is Not Entitled to a "Class 1" CEOA Exemption Because It Proposes Expansion of An Existing Use from Empty Retail Space to Active Restaurant Use 101 THE GROVE DRIVE - LOS ANGELES, CA 90036 - T 323.900.8100 - F 323.900.8101 - WWW.CARUSOAFFILIATEU,COM LOB ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO Title 14, California Code of Regulations ( "CCR ") Section 15301 provides a CEQA exemption for changes in permitting or use "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." (Emphasis supplied.) The text of the exemption emphasizes that "[t]he key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." Initially, we note that Westfield waited until its Phase lb project was barely opened in order to submit its application, so that it could argue that it was making this change to an "existing use." But Westfield does not claim that the area it seeks to convert is at this moment actually being used as retail space. To the contrary, the May 12, 2009 Staff Report notes that Westfield seeks this change "[d)ue to the current economic climate." (Page 2.) In other words, the retail space is empty. The language of the exemption is clear that the application of the exempti6n looks to uses "existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." The "determination" in question is the granting of the exemption, not the 2007 approval, which was never implemented as to this space. The reason why this exemption is so limited is obvious. Categorical exemptions are intended only for changes that "have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment." (Title 14 CCR Section 15000, Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21084.) While Westfield would argue that a conversion of space being used as retail space to restaurant use would not have a significant effect on the environment, the same obviously cannot be said if unused space is converted to active restaurant use. The case law interpreting Section 15301 fully supports this common sense reading. In Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, 101. Cal.App.4th 786 (2002) the Court of Appeal found applicable the Class 1 exemption for a parking ordinance that allowed free on -street parking to neighborhood residents who obtained a permit. The Court reasoned that curbside parking was an existing use, and no additional parking spaces we being added by the ordinance. Here, by contrast, a use of these 13,500 square feet for restaurant use not only does not now exist, but is prohibited from existing. Likewise in Bloom v. McGurk, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1307 (1994) the Court held that the Category 1 exception applied to the renewal of a permit for a use, even though there had been no previous CEQA review. By contrast, in this case no argument is possible that the prohibited restaurant use is an "existing use." Finally, in County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, the Court held that the change in operation of a dam from generating power only to consumption of the water was not entitled to a Class 1 exemption even though operation of the same facility (the dam) would be the same in both cases, because a shifts from non - consumptive to consumptive use is not a negligible expansion of current use. Likewise in this case, even though the same square footage is involved, the proposal is to change the status quo from empty retail space to currently prohibited restaurant use. 2. There is More Than a "Fair Argument" That The Change to Restaurant Use of 13,500 Sauare Feet Will Involve More Than Negligible Impacts In evaluating whether an exception to a categorical exemption applies, the courts will use the "fair argument" standard. Thus, if a "fair argument" based on substantial evidence can be made that significant environmental impacts would result from a project, an agency may not rely on a categorical exemption. Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (1997). Obviously, the proposed change of the use of the 13,500 square feet existing today (no use at all) to the prohibited restaurant use would involve more than negligible impacts in a number of areas, including but not limited to those discussed below. But even were the exemption from CEQA cast so that the relevant change is from the phantom retail use to restaurant use, more than a "fair argument" exists that this would result in more than a "negligible or no expansion of an existing use." The following is but a sampling of the added impacts that the conversion to restaurant uses will have and the questions that the City must ask: a. Water Use, Sewage Obviously, restaurant use requires far more water than ordinary retail use. Yet the Staff Report does not disclose that Westfield has requested an updated water supply assessment for Phase lb that reflects the addition of 13,500 square feet of restaurant use. Water use for restaurants is approximately 6 times greater than for retail uses, and waste water generation is approximately 10 times greater for restaurants than for retail uses. Yet Westfield in seeking its exemption bypasses any consideration of the availability of these resources and the impacts of Westfield's increased consumption of them created by its proposed change. b. Solid Waste Plan In Wesyleld LLC v. City of Arcadia et al., No. BS 108923 the Superior Court's held that the City needed to consider the feasibility of a prohibition of using Styrofoam (expanded polystyrene) containers. An ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, to which we were referred in that case applies specifically to restaurants, because they are the primary users of Styrofoam in their take -out containers. A conversion to restaurant uses will generate far more Styrofoam, yet Westfield now hypocritically asserts by its application for an exemption that this impact is negligible. And going beyond this specific defect, Westfield does not even consider the large volume of food waste that its new proposed use will generate. c. Traffic There were at least two intersections studied in the Phase lb Addendum that were very close to having a significant impact after mitigations — yet Westfield has not demonstrated that these intersections will remain under the impact threshold given the additional traffic generated from the expanded restaurant use. In addition, conditions of approval for the Phase lb Addendum required careful monitoring of the pick up and drop off area for cars stacking beyond the design capacity. Yet Westfield does not propose to show that this area will perform adequately with the additional traffic created by the new restaurant uses. Finally, Westfield is silent as to how it can have an increase in parking demand without an increase in trip generation. d. Parking To meet peak parking demand, Westfield relied on the Santa Anita racetrack parking lots (Driveway D, and Racetrack Employee Lots) and other lots for 919 stalls, or 14% of total peak demand. The addition of new restaurant square footage will increase parking demand another 83 stalls. Yet Westfield offers no guarantee that Santa Anita Park will provide any overflow stalls at all (let alone almost 1000). Santa Anita Park has no obligation now or in the future to provide additional parking supply to Westfield, so where will these stalls come from? (Note: the entire Villa Madre Park and Ride structure has only 950 stalls.) The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the International Council of Shopping Centers provide guidelines for calculating parking requirements for regional shopping centers. When the percentage of non - retail uses is between 10 % and 20% of total GLA (Westfield claims the total percentage of non - retail use is 13 %) ULI recommends a sliding scale for calculating parking ratios. An increase in restaurant uses in particular is considered to significantly increase parking demand, as patrons tend to stay longer. In the Phase lb Addendum, parking occupancy counts were conducted on December 18` 2004 at 2 :30 PM only and the conclusion proffered that the lots were completely filled. There is no accounting for cars turned away due to lack of parking, and no explanation as to why only one count on one particular date was performed, rather than multiple weekend peaks during the holiday season. Reliance on conclusions of the 2004 analysis is another example of how Westfield is using old and suspect data to present a rosy picture of current conditions (below). The proposed parking mitigation allows Westfield to count only "leased" square footage in determining required parking. The Arcadia Municipal Code makes no distinction between leased space and space intended for a tenant's use but currently vacant. Under this rationale, if all available stalls are used to satisfy current peak parking demand, then Westfield must build more parking stalls to accommodate the future re -use of the Robinson's May department store. The mall should comply with the code. e. Land Use With 23% of the Phase lb Expansion proposed to be devoted to restaurant, why is this project not evaluated as a mixed use project? Westfield claims the entire mall including all expansions falls under a 20% threshold. Even assuming that is a valid claim, would Westfield also claim that converting an additional 100,000 square feet of retail to restaurant use in the mall (to get to 20% of the total GLA) would have no environment impact? f. "Piecemealing" The staff report accepts uncritically that the timing of Westfield's application is coincidental, and that filing this exemption application immediately after the opening of Phase 1B happened because Westfield discovered the infeasibility of its project only after it opened. The omission of the full impact of the restaurant expansion from the Phase lb Expansion EIR Addendum allowed Westfield (it hopes) to avoid consideration of the potential environmental impacts of this expansion, including those discussed above. Yet, CEQA does not allow a project to be segmented into bite -sized pieces to avoid consideration of the full environmental impacts of the project. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. 3d 263, 283 -284 (1975); see McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143 -1144 (1988); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 716 (1990); Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com., 101 Cal. App. 4th 1333,1345-1347 (2002) (separate applications from same developer to build various numbers of houses on same street comprised single project requiring EIR). 3. Westfield Has Created an Entitlement "House of Cards" By Altering in 2009 Uses Found in 2007 to be No More Severe Than Were Analyzed in 2000 As with the Phase lb EIR addendum, Westfield continues to construct an entitlement "house of cards ", requesting this amendment to a prior addendum to an almost 10 year old EIR that has very little to do with what has been constructed by Westfield since. Although Westfield declined to title its 2000 EIR a "Master EIR," that was what it was. Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15175(b)(3) (an EIR for a "project that consists of smaller individual projects which will be carried out in phases. "). The CEQA Guidelines recognize that a Master EIR may not be used if it "was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for. a subsequent project." (lbid, Section 15179(a)(1).) The only exception is if certain findings are made which the City did not make or other actions are taken which Westfield did not take. Westfield used a seven - year old EIR to do its Addendum, and now uses a nine -year old EIR in an effort to alter its Addendum. But the principle that stale information may not be the basis for environmental decision making is not limited to Master EIRs. An entity with the large resources and influence of Westfield can easily manipulate the CEQA process to suit its ends, unless that entity is held accountable by close public scrutiny of its actions and the checks and balances afforded by community stakeholders like Santa Anita Park and Caruso Affiliated. Council approval of this amendment would leave no corrective remedy other than litigation, which is not in the community's interest. incerely, 7va nsel Caruso Affiliated cc: Brian Cornelius Frank DeMarco Rick Lemmo CARUSO JUN 092009 AFFI LIATED June 9, 2009 Don Penman, City Manager Steve Deitsch, Best Best and Krieger John Wuo, Mayor Peter Amundson, Mayor Pro Tem Roger Chandler, Council Member Robert C. Harbicht, Council Member Gary A Kovacic, Council Member City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, CA 91066 RE: Amendment to Architectural Review No. ADR 2005 -026 and City Council Resolution No. 6562 for the Phase lb expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue. Dear Council Members and Mr. Penman: Thank you for your patience in allowing us to present our concerns about the above reference matter to City Council members at last Tuesday's hearing. Since then we've considered the comments made at the hearing, and remain convinced that the correct mechanism under CEQA for the City of Arcadia to employ to permit Westfield to convert approximately 13,500 square feet of vacant square footage in Phase lb into restaurant square footage is a mitigated negative declaration (MND). We believe this both as a legal matter, given a proper interpretation of CEQA, and because the environmental analysis required for an MM could, in fact, reveal impacts that would otherwise not have adequate public review and input and could escape required mitigation. We also believe it is a matter of fairness that applicants for entitlements in the City of Arcadia all be held to the same standard of environmental review. We understand that Westfield has already completed much of the environmental analysis that would be required for an MM, and should take relatively little time to return to staff with a complete study. Our only further interest will be to review that study for its completeness 101 THE GROVE DRIVE • LOS ANGELES, CA 90038 • T 323.900.6100 • F 3 23.900.8101 • WWW.CARUSOA r FILIATED.COM LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO _ _ a and accuracy. Several times over the past few years we have expressed our concerns about reliance on Westfield's 2000 Program E1R, in preparing an EIR Addendum five year later for Phase lb, in spite of substantial and significant new circumstances. Now this 2009 application to amend conditions of approval of the Phase 1 b entitlement has its foundations resting on an outdated analysis which clearly does not accurately reflect the timing or scope of subsequent phases of the Westfield mall expansion, let alone the new significant environmental effects and the feasibility of new mitigation measures not available in 2000 or at the time of the 2007 Phase 1 b EIR Addendum. We believe that the best outcome would be for the decision to be made now to Prepare an MM for Westfield's application. This would substantially speed along the process of getting to the merits of the application, and would save the City, Westfield, and Caruso considerable effort in preparing more formal legal analyses in advance of the hearing. If that course is acceptable to the City and to the applicant, please inform us as soon as possible so that we may suspend the efforts of our staff and attorneys. rely, B ' Cornelius Caruso Affiliated cc: Jason Kruckeberg David Silva Joel Moskowitz Frank DeMarco Rick Lemmo 4 Frank Ike Marco, Jr., Esq. General Counsel & Assistant Secretary May 28, 2009 Mr. Don Penman City Manager City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91007 y k__C_9. � jl ._.'._� li MAY 2 8 2009 r - -7,..� Re: Proposed Amendment to Phase lb - Expansion of Westfield Santa Anita Mall Dear Mr. Penman: We acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing on June 2, 2009 where Westfield Santa Anita Mall will ask for an amendment to Architectural Review Number ADR2005 -026 and City Council Resolution Number 6562 for a proposed expansion of Phase lb of the above - referenced Mall property. While we have not completed a comprehensive review of the proposal, we cannot help but notice that the request for additional restaurant footage may increase the demand for additional parking which, at best, is at a premium at the mall location now. We wish to advise, and to make it clear to all concerned, that Santa Anita Park is not tinder any obligation to provide parking spaces for use by Westfield Mall customers during the Christmas season, or otherwise, at any time after December 26, 2008. There are no plans to entertain requests from Westfield for further use of parking stalls at Santa Anita now or in the future. Very truly yours, °prank De Marco, Jr, FDM:sm 090507.2 ro Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. 285 W 1 Drive, P,O. I3ox 600 1/, Arcadia, C 91066 - 6014 (626) 574 - 7223 Fax (626) 4 /j6 matrix environmental June 2, 2009 Lisa Flores Senior Planner CITY OF ARCADIA 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 7 y JUN 0 2 1009 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF MODIFICATION TO CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR PHASE 1 B OF THE WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA EXPANSION PROJECT Dear Ms. Flores: On behalf of Westfield, LLC, Matrix Environmental has performed an independent review of the environmental implications associated with the proposed modification to a Condition of Approval for Phase 1 b of the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project approved in 2007. Below is an overview of the background of Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project followed by an evaluation of whether the proposed modification to the Condition of Approval for Phase lb to include up to an additional 13,500 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of 13,500 square feet of retail uses would result in any new impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Environmental Impact Report Certified in 2000 (Certified EIR) and the Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR approved in 2007 (Addendum). BACKGROUND In 1999, Westfield, LLC submitted an application to expand shopping center uses on the Westfield Santa Anita property by 600,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA). The Certified EIR addressed the environmental consequences of the 600,000 square foot expansion. In several entitlement actions by the City of Arcadia on October 3, 2000, this Project was approved with the provision that each unit of development be subject to an architectural design review process. Phase la of the expansion, with approximately 255,943 square feet of GLA, was completed in October 2004. In 2006, Westfield, LLC filed applications for a second phase of development, referred to as Phase 1 b, which comprised approximately 115,000 square feet of shopping center GLA based on the Urban Land Institute's definition of GLA or 100,800 square feet based on the City of Arcadia's definition of GLA. Up to 10,000 square feet of restaurant GLA was included as part of the shopping center uses. In 2007, Matrix Environmental staff directed and prepared an Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR. The Addendum evaluated the environmental consequences of Phase 1 a, Phase 1 b, and the balance of the 600,000 square feet of GLA approved for the site (Phase 2). The Addendum demonstrated that all of the impacts associated with Phase la, Phase 1b, and Phase 2 were within the envelope of impacts addressed in the Certified EIR. Specifically, the Addendum demonstrated that implementation of Phase 1 b and Phase 2 would not result in a new significant 6701 Center Drive, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90045 Phone: (424) 207 -5333 Fax. (424) 207 -5349 matrix environmental Lisa Flores CITY OF ARCADIA JUNE 2, 2009 - PAGE 2 environmental impact or a substantial increase in a significant impact already identified in the Certified EIR. The City of Arcadia approved the Addendum and the design review application for Phase 1 b in 2007. In an application submitted in March 2009, Westfield, LLC proposes to modify a Condition of Approval of Phase lb to provide up to an additional 13,500 square feet of restaurant GLA with a corresponding reduction of 13,500 square feet of retail GLA. Thus, there would not be any increase in the total approved square footage. In addition, the space is already built and is part of the existing Santa Anita center. No additional construction or other modifications would occur. ANALYSIS OF MODIFIED CONDITION FOR PHASE 1 B Based on a review of the Addendum and the Certified EIR, the proposed modification of the Condition of Approval of Phase lb to provide up to 13,500 square feet of restaurant GLA in exchange for up to 13,500 square feet of retail GLA would not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in a significant impact already identified in the Certified EIR. Rather, as discussed in Attachment A, with the proposed modification, the impact conclusions for each of the environmental topic areas addressed for Phase 1 b within the Addendum would not change. While a detailed analysis was performed to confirm that there would be no impacts or changes in impact conclusions, the reality is that at most, the proposed request involves a negligible change to the existing Santa Anita center. To put things in perspective, the Santa Anita center contains approximately 1,469,539 square feet of GLA of shopping uses based on LILI's definition of GLA. As a result of the request, up to 13,500 square feet of space previously allocated to retail uses and representing less than one percent of the existing GLA within the site would be allowed to be used as restaurant space. We understand that staff has determined that a categorical exemption (Class 1) is appropriate for the proposed modification. We concur with this determination. Please call me at (424) 207 -5333 should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, MATRIX ENVIRONMENTAL r tephanie Eyestone -Jones President Attachment A: Impact Conclusions by Environmental Topic matrix environmental ATTACHMENT A IMPACT CONCLUSIONS BY ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC Based on the analyses below, the proposed modification of Phase lb to include additional restaurant uses in lieu of the same amount of retail uses would result, at most, in a negligible change in the use of the existing Santa Anita center since, among other reasons, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not generate new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the Certified EIR and the Addendum. AESTHETICS, VIEWS, LIGHT AND GLARE • The modified condition would not change the overall massing and height of proposed buildings, or the landscape concept initially proposed for Phase 1b. Architectural materials would be similar to that previously evaluated with the use of material such as stucco, stone natural wood, painted storefront metals, and other materials that are not highly reflective. In addition, proposed lighting would continue to comply with the design guidelines established as part of Resolution 6199 that specify that light standards may not be more than 20 feet in height and that lighting shall be hooded and arranged to reflect light away from adjoining properties and public rights of way. Such lighting would not exceed the City threshold of 0.1 foot candies onto residential uses. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the aesthetic character, views or light and glare impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. AIR QUALITY The modified condition for Phase lb would not change the conservative construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction activities set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Thus, the modification to include additional restaurant uses in lieu of retail uses would not change any of the construction emissions impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. With regard to operational emissions, the proposed modification would not change the trip generation set forth in the 2007 Addendum. In addition, with the proposed modification, the use of Phase lb would continue to be characterized as a regional shopping center, which provides for restaurant uses. Thus, the operational emissions calculations, which were based on a regional shopping center use, would not be modified as a result of the proposed modification and the operational air quality impacts evaluated in the Addendum would not change. Page A -1 matrix environmental GEOLOGY /SOILS AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, MINERAL RESOURCES. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY The modified condition for Phase 1 b would not change the amount of grading, impervious surfaces, drainage patterns or types of uses set forth for Phase 1 b. In addition, with the proposed modification, compliance with regulations including National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .requirements would continue. Thus, none of the impacts associated with geology /soils, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources and hydrology /surface water quality that are evaluated in the 2007 Addendum would change with the proposed modification of Phase 1 b. HAZARDS /HAZARDOUS MATERIALS • The modified condition for Phase 1 b would not result in new uses that would generate, use, or dispose of hazardous material which could pose public health hazards. Therefore, the proposed modification would not change the hazards/ hazardous materials impacts that are evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. LAND USE/PLANNING The modified condition for Phase lb would not develop buildings outside of the building envelope (Building Area C) or introduce uses that would be incompatible with existing uses already established on -site. New buildings would be located as described in Section 2.0 of the 2007 Addendum. In addition, with the proposed modification, Phase 1 b would continue to be consistent with the zoning regulations set forth for the site as well as the City of Arcadia General Plan and other regional plans that regulate development. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the land use /planning impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. NOISE With the modified condition for Phase 1b, the closest noise - sensitive uses would continue to be located a minimum of approximately 300 feet from the closest point of construction and would continue to be separated from the site by large surface parking areas and multi -lane roadways. In addition, topography and mature landscaping would continue to buffer new development from adjacent land uses. The proposed modification to Phase lb would not change the conservative construction assumptions related to construction equipment mix and peak construction activities or the trip generation and associated traffic noise levels set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the construction and operational noise impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. Page A -2 matrix environmental POPULATION /HOUSING /EMPLOYMENT The modified condition for Phase 1 b would not change any of the impact analyses in the 2007 Addendum related to population and housing as there are no residential uses on site that would be removed, nor would any new residential use be proposed with the modification to Phase 1b. In addition, based on the employment factors set forth in the Certified EIR, the modification of Phase lb to add up to another 13,500 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of 13,500 square feet retail uses would not change the employment calculations, which anticipated 150 full -time and 150 part- time employees. Thus, the proposed modification would not change the population, housing and employment impacts evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. PUBLIC SERVICES (POLICE PROTECTION FIRE PROTECTION SCHOOLS RECREATION) The proposed modification to Phase lb would not increase the total amount of GLA approved for Phase 1 b. In addition, the proposed modification to Phase 1 b would not include cinema uses or large restaurant - entertainment uses. Thus, the impacts in the 2007 Addendum regarding police and fire protection would not change with the proposed modification to Phase 1b. In addition, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not include any residential uses. Thus, impacts related to schools and recreation within the 2007 Addendum would not change. TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING A memorandum was prepared by Fehr and Peers in March 2009 that assessed the traffic and parking implications of the modified condition for Phase 1b. As demonstrated therein, the proposed modification would not affect the trip generation of the Project and therefore the traffic conclusions set forth in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR remain valid. In addition, while the change to convert up to 13,500 square feet of retail space to restaurant space would result in an increase of approximately 83 parking spaces during the busiest hour of the year during the December holiday period, the proposed 6,204 -space parking supply would continue to have over 1,000 empty spaces on most days of the year. In addition, with the continued use of an off -site parking program during December weekends, adequate parking would continue to be provided during the peak holiday period, as occurs under the existing circumstances. Thus, with the proposed modification impacts would continue to be less than significant as set forth in the 2007 Addendum. UTILITIES /SERVICE SYSTEMS (ELECTRICITY NATURAL GAS WATER WASTEWATER SOLID WASTE The proposed modification to Phase lb may result in a negligible increase in the demand for electricity. In addition, in Southern California Edison's (SCE) letter to the Applicant included in Appendix F of the 2007 Addendum, SCE indicated that it would provide electrical service for an expansion of approximately 180,000 square feet. Page A -3 matrix environmental Thus, Phase 1 b with the proposed modification to convert up to 13,500 square feet of retail space to up to 13,500 square feet of restaurant space would generate less demand for electrical service than SCE indicated it would provide. In addition, the negligible increase in electrical demand associated with the modification to Phase lb would be well below the demand anticipated for full buildout of the 600,000 square feet approved in 2000. Furthermore, Westfield would continue to implement the mitigation measure that requires coordination with SCE to address electrical demand. Westfield would also continue to comply with regulatory requirements regarding energy conservation. Thus, with implementation of such mitigation and regulatory requirements, impacts associated with the use of electricity would continue to be less than significant. As discussed in the 2007 Addendum, the calculation of demand for 'natural gas generated by the approved Phase lb is overstated. In addition, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not change the conservative calculations used in the Certified EIR. Thus, impacts regarding natural gas set forth in the 2007 Addendum would not change. While water demand and wastewater generation are typically higher for restaurant uses when compared with retail uses, the 2007 Addendum for Phase lb used conservative factors for water and wastewater generation that account for both retail and restaurant uses. Specifically, wastewater demand was calculated using the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County's ( CSDLAC) wastewater generation factors, which are set forth in the County Sanitation District No. 15's Sewer Connection Fee Ordinance. (County Sanitation District No. 15 provides wastewater service to the Project site). In addition, water demand was calculated by multiplying the CSDLAC's wastewater generation factors by 125 percent. The CSDLAC factor used to calculate wastewater and water demand for Phase lb was based on a "shopping center" use with a corresponding factor of 325 gallons per day per thousand square feet.' This factor accounts for both retail and restaurant uses. In order to provide a conservative analysis, this factor was used in lieu of CSDLAC's factor for a "regional mall" use, which is 150 gallons per day per thousand feet and also accounts for both retail and restaurant uses. It is also important to note that the calculations As indicated on page 186 of the Addendum, use of the 325 gallons per day per thousand square feet factor results in wastewater generation of approximately 33,375 gallons per day. As shown on page 179 of the Addendum, multiplying CSDLAC's shopping center factor of 325 by 125 percent results in a water demand factor of 406.25 gallons per day per thousand square feet. Applying this factor to the 115,000 square feet of GLA proposed as part of Phase 1b results in a water demand of approximately 46,719 gallons per day. 2 Applying LACSD's factor of 150 gallons per day per thousand square feet to the 115,000 square feet of GLA proposed by Phase 1b results in daily wastewater generation of approximately 17,250 gallons per day (approximately 20,125 gallons per day less than stated in the Addendum) and a daily water demand of approximately 21,563 gallons per day (approximately 25,156 gallons per day less than stated in the Addendum). Page A-4 matrix environmental included in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR do not account for numerous water conservation features that are implemented within the project site to conserve water and reduce wastewater generation. For example, the Applicant has installed waterless urinals within areas of the site. Each of these units reduces water usage by approximately 80,000 to 100,000 gallons per year on an annual basis. Furthermore, the Applicant will continue to comply with the mitigation measures listed in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR that require compliance with water conservation measures and replacement or repair of detector check valves if leaking is found. Thus, with the proposed modification to Phase 1b, the impact analyses regarding wastewater and water within the 2007 Addendum would not change. With regard to the analysis of solid waste, the 2007 Addendum uses the California Integrated Waste Management Board's ( CIWMB) generation rate specified for "Shopping Center" uses, which accounts for retail and restaurant uses. Using CIWMB's separate generation rates for retail and restaurant uses instead of the shopping center rate would actually result in a reduction in anticipated solid waste generation. Specifically, for planning purposes, CIWMB has set forth a rate of 0.006 pounds per square foot per day for commercial retail uses and a rate of 0.005 pounds per square foot per day for restaurant uses. Applying these factors to the 91,500 square feet of retail uses and 23,500 square feet or restaurant uses results in approximately 121.60 tons per year of solid waste or approximately 403.10 tons per year less than generated using the "shopping center" factor used in the 2007 Addendum. In addition, based on CIWMB's recent disposal rate, which accounts for diversion and recycling, Phase 1 b would dispose of approximately 346.3 tons per year of solid waste, which is also well below the solid waste generation number for Phase 1b set forth in the 2007 Addendum. Thus, the proposed modification to Phase lb would not result in an increase in solid waste generation when compared with the estimated generation for Phase lb set forth in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR. In addition, the mitigation measures set forth in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR that require incorporation of storage and collection recyclables into the project design, recycling of various materials, and collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts would continue to be implemented. Thus, the solid waste impacts set forth in the 2007 Addendum would not change and such impacts Would continue to be less than significant. htta://www. ciwmb. ca.gov /WasteChar/WasteGenRates/ accessed May 30, 2009 Based on disposal rates of 3.1 tons per employee per year for restaurant uses and 0.3 tons per employee per year for retail (general merchandise) uses from httD.1Avww. ciwmb. ca. aov/WasteChar/WasteGenRatesl. accessed May 30, 2009. Also assumes four employees per thousand square feet of restaurant uses and two employees per thousand square feet of retail uses. Page A -5 matrix environmental June 2, 2009 Lisa Flores Senior Planner CITY OF ARCADIA 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91066 RE: RESPONSE TO LETTERS REGARDING THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR PHASE 1 B Dear Ms. Flores: Matrix Environmental and Gibson Transportation have reviewed the letters from Caruso Affiliated and the Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. regarding the proposed modification to a condition of approval for Phase 1 b that were received by Westfield last Thursday. Responses to each of these comment letters are attached. Matrix Environmental is a specialized environmental consulting firm led by Stephanie Eyestone -Jones and Bruce Lackow, recognized leaders in the environmental consulting field who together have over 45 years of environmental consulting experience in preparing legally sound California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation for many of the most high - profile projects in Southern California. Our staff is comprised of 10 highly experienced planners and an air quality specialist who have extensive experience with each of the issues addressed under CEQA and NEPA, as well as with a variety of project types. Our accomplishments include the successful completion of environmental documents for clients such as Westfield LLC, Universal Studios, The Boeing Company, the University of Southern California, The J. Paul Getty Trust, Anschutz Entertainment Group, The Related Companies, Maguire Thomas Partners, and Playa Capital Company. In addition to past successes, Matrix Environmental is currently working with most of these clients on current projects as well. Of particular note is that Ms. Eyestone -Jones served as the Principal -In- Charge and Project Manager for the Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approved by the City in 2007. Furthermore, Patrick Gibson, currently President of Gibson Transportation, served similar roles with regard to all traffic related issues addressed by the 2007 Addendum. As demonstrated by the responses to the two comment letters as well as the letter to the City we prepared regarding the environmental implications-of the proposed modification to Phase 1b, the proposed modification would not result in any new significant impacts. 6701 Center Drive, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90045 Phone: (424) 207 -5333 Fax: (424) 207 -5349 matrix environmental Lisa Flores CITY OF ARCADIA JUNE 2, 2009 - PAGE 2 Rather, with the proposed modification, the impact conclusions for each of the environmental topic areas addressed for Phase lb within the 2007 Addendum would not change. The proposed request involves a negligible change to the existing Santa Anita center. Westfield Santa Anita center contains approximately 1,469,539 square feet of gross leasable area of shopping uses. As a result of the request, up to 13,500 square feet of space previously allocated to retail uses and representing less than one percent of the existing GLA within the site would be allowed to be used as restaurant space. We understand that staff has determined that a categorical exemption (Class 1) is appropriate for the proposed modification. We concur with this determination. Please call me at (424) 207 -5333 should you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, MATRIX ENVIRONMENTAL Stephanie Eyestone -Jones President LETTER NO. 1 David Silva Chief Counsel Caruso Affiliated 101 The Grove Drive Los Angeles, CA 90036 COMMENT NO. 1 -1 It has very recently come to our attention that Westfield has applied for an amendment to the conditions of approval of its Phase I b expansion, including an increase in the allowable square footage of restaurant use to more than double the current allowed limit. Moreover, Westfield would like Arcadia to grant a categorical exemption from environmental review of this intensification of a non - retail use under CEQA, claiming this is a "minor alteration of an existing facility ". This action occurs only a few weeks from the opening of the very same mail expansion. After reviewing the application materials submitted by Westfield, and the City Staff Report dated May 12th, 2009, we have several specific comments that I will outline here. I must emphasize at the outset, however, that the "exemption" process that Westfield has chosen leaves us little time to fashion fully detailed technical comments. 1. Westfield is Not Entitled to a "Class 1" CEQA Exemption Because It Proposes Expansion of An Existing Use from Empty Retail Space to Active Restaurant Use Title 14, California Code of Regulations ( "CCR ") Section 15301 provides a CEQA exemption for changes in permitting or use "involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." (Emphasis supplied.) The text of the exemption emphasizes that "[t]he key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." Initially, we note that Westfield waited until its Phase 1 b project was barely opened in order to submit its application, so that it could argue that it was making this change to an "existing use." But Westfield does not claim that the area it seeks to convert is at this moment actually being used as retail space. To the contrary, the May 12, 2009 Staff Report notes that Westfield seeks this change "[d]ue to the current economic climate." (Page 2.) In other words, the retail space is empty. The language of the exemption is clear that the application of the exemption looks to uses "existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." The "determination" in question is the granting of the exemption, not the 2007 approval, which was never implemented as to this space. The reason why this exemption is so limited is obvious. Categorical exemptions are intended only for changes that "have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment." (Title 14 CCR Section 15000, Cal. Public Resources Code City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 1 Section 21084.) While Westfield would argue that a conversion of space being used as retail space to restaurant use would not have a significant effect on the environment, the same obviously cannot be said if unused space is converted to active restaurant use. , The case law interpreting Section 15301 fully supports this common sense reading.. In Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica, 101. Cal.AppAth 786 (2002) the Court of Appeal found applicable the Class 1 exemption for a parking ordinance that allowed free on- street parking to neighborhood residents who obtained a permit. The Court reasoned that curbside parking was an existing use, and no additional parking spaces we being added by the ordinance. Here, by contrast, a use of these 13,500 square feet for restaurant use not only does not now exist, but is prohibited from existing. Likewise in Bloom v. McGurk, 26 Cal. App. 4th 1307 (1994) the Court held that the Category 1 exception applied to the renewal of a permit for a use, even though there had been no previous CEQA review. By contrast, in this case no argument is possible that the prohibited restaurant use is an "existing use." Finally, in County ofAmador v. El Dorado County Water Agency, the Court held that the change in operation of a dam from generating power only to consumption of the water was not entitled to a Class 1 exemption even though operation of the same facility (the dam) would be the same in both cases, because a shifts [sic] from non - consumptive to consumptive use is not a negligible expansion of current use. Likewise in this case, even though the same square footage is involved, the proposal is to change the status quo from empty retail space to currently prohibited restaurant use. RESPONSE NO. 1 -1 Westfield submitted its application to the City of Arcadia for the proposed condition modification on March 12, 2009 and not after the grand opening of the Phase 1 b project, as incorrectly stated by the commentor. The City is responsible for determining the appropriate level of environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), and staff has determined that a categorical exemption is appropriate for the proposed modification. It is our understanding that Westfield did not request an exemption from CEQA. Notwithstanding, based on our review of the record, we concur with this determination, as described in further detail below. The proposed increase in restaurant square footage in lieu of other retail uses for the approved Phase 1 b expansion project at Westfield Santa Anita is exempt from further review under CEQA. As noted in Resolution 6562, the Phase 1 b project was approved by the City Council on May 21, 2007: At the same time, the City certified an Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report that updated the environmental analyses and concluded that the Phase 1 b project would not have any new significant impacts ( "2007 Addendum "). City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1 b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 2 • The Phase lb project and 2007 Addendum permitted up to 100,800 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (City definition of GLA) of retail uses which included a maximum of 10,000 square feet of restaurant space.' It should be noted that the Phase 1 b project has been fully constructed (100,800 sf GLA) and opened for business on May 7, 2009. There are a few vacancies in the Phase 1b project that could be filled with retail tenants without any further City approval other than ministerial building permits for tenant improvements. Within the approved 100,800 square feet of GLA for Phase 1b, in its March 2009 application, Westfield has requested permission to replace up to 13,500 square feet of retail space with up to 13,500 square feet of restaurant space. The commentor's characterization that the request before the City is from phantom retail space to active bustling restaurant space is hard to understand. The request before the City is clear: to transfer up to 13,500 square feet of permitted retail space to up to 13,500 square feet of permitted restaurant space at the existing Santa Anita center. Nothing new will be constructed as a result of this request, nor is it reasonable to assert that there would be anything beyond a negligible change of use. This use is part of a larger existing shopping center. To put things in perspective, the Santa Anita center contains approximately 1,469,539 square feet of GLA of shopping uses based on ULI's definition of GLA. As a result of the request, up to 13,500 square feet of space previously allocated to retail uses and representing less than one percent of the existing GLA within the project site will be allowed to be used as restaurant space. This would not result in any new significant environmental impact beyond what was identified previously in the certified 2007 Addendum, as discussed in detail below. It should be noted that the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing on this application was noticed pursuant to the City's standard guidelines, and the commentor's joint venture partner, the Santa Anita Racetrack, was provided mailed notice of both the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The 100,800 square feet of GLA under the City definition of GLA is equivalent to 115,000 square feet of GLA using the Urban Land Institute's definition of GLA. The 2007 Addendum uses the ULI's definition of GLA. 2 The request does not add any additional square footage to the project nor take any improper credit for currently vacant space at the existing facility. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase lb Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 3 COMMENT NO. 1 -2 2. There is More Than a "Fair Argument" That The Chance to Restaurant Use of 13.500 Square Feet Will Involve More Than Nealiaible Impacts In evaluating whether an exception to a categorical exemption applies, the courts will use the "fair argument" standard. Thus, if a "fair argument" based on substantial evidence can be made that significant environmental impacts would result from a project, an agency may not rely on a categorical exemption. Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (1997). Obviously, the proposed change of the use of the 13,500 square feet existing today (no use at all) to the prohibited restaurant use would involve more than negligible impacts in a number of areas, including but not limited to those discussed below. But even were the exemption from CEQA cast so that the relevant change is from the phantom retail use to restaurant use, more than a "fair argument" exists that this would result in more than a "negligible or no expansion of an existing use." The following is but a sampling of the added impacts that the conversion to restaurant uses will have and the questions that the City must ask: RESPONSE NO. 1 -2 The commentor refers to an exception to the categorical exemption at issue here, but the comment fails to quote the entirety of that exception. CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (Emphasis added.) The commentor has not pointed to any unusual circumstances in this matter, let alone unusual circumstances that may cause a new significant impact. Therefore, the only issue in this matter is whether there is substantial evidence to support the City's determination that Categorical Exemption, Class 1 under the CEQA Guidelines applies to Westfield's request. That request does not seek an expansion in the physical size of the retail space at issue. The request only seeks a change in use of that space from retail to restaurant. That change in use is only a negligible expansion of the already permitted use within the meaning of Categorical Exemption, Class 1 for the reasons discussed herein, including the fact that the proposed change in use will not cause any new significant impact. City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 4 COMMENT NO. 1 -3 a. Water Use, Sewage Obviously, restaurant use requires far more water than ordinary retail use. Yet the Staff Report does not disclose that Westfield has requested an updated water supply assessment for Phase 1 b that reflects the addition of 13,500 square feet of restaurant use. Water use for restaurants is approximately 6 times greater than for retail uses, and waste water generation is approximately 10 times greater for restaurants than for retail uses. Yet Westfield in seeking its exemption bypasses any consideration of the availability of these resources and the impacts of Westfield's increased consumption of them created by its proposed change. RESPONSE NO. 1 -3 The commentor is correct that restaurant uses generate more wastewater and water than retail uses. However, the generation factors used in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR to calculate the demand for both wastewater and water were conservative and account for both retail and restaurant uses. Specifically, wastewater demand was calculated using the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County's (CSDLAC) wastewater generation factors, which are set forth in the County Sanitation District No. 15's Sewer. Connection Fee Ordinance. (County Sanitation District No. 15 provides wastewater service to the Project site). In addition, water demand was calculated by multiplying the CSDLAC's wastewater generation factors by 125 percent. The CSDLAC factor used to calculate wastewater and water demand for Phase lb was based on a "shopping center" use with a corresponding factor of 325 gallons per day per thousand square feet. This factor accounts for both retail and restaurant uses. In order to provide a conservative analysis, this factor was used in lieu of CSDLAC's factor for a "regional mall" use, which is 150 gallons per day per thousand feet and also accounts for both retail and restaurant uses. It is also important to note that the calculations included in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR do not account for numerous water conservation features that are 3 As indicated on page 186 of the 2007 Addendum, use of the 325 gallons per day per thousand square feet factor results in wastewater generation of approximately 33,375 gallons per day. As shown on page 179 of the 2007 Addendum, multiplying CSDLAC's shopping center factor of 325 by 125 percent results in a water demand factor of 406.25 gallons per day per thousand square feet. Applying this factor to the 115,000 square feet of GLA proposed as part of Phase 1b results in a water demand of approximately 46,719 gallons per day. Applying LACSD's factor of 150 gallons per day per thousand square feet to the 115,000 square feet of GLA proposed by Phase 1b results in daily wastewater generation of approximately 17,250 gallons per day (approximately 20,125 gallons per day less than stated in the 2007 Addendum) and a daily water demand of approximately 21,563 gallons per day (approximately 25,156 gallons per day less than stated in the 2007 Addendum). City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 5 implemented within the project site to conserve water and reduce wastewater generation. For example, the Applicant has installed waterless urinals within areas of the site. Each of these units reduces water usage by approximately 80,000 to 100,000 gallons per year on an annual basis. Furthermore, the applicant will continue to comply with the mitigation measures listed in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR that require compliance with water conservation measures and replacement or repair of detector check valves if leaking is found. Thus, with the proposed modification to Phase 1 b, the impact conclusions regarding water demand and wastewater generation reached in the 2007 Addendum would not change. Consideration of the availability of water and wastewater resources has not been bypassed. Westfield has made no request for an updated water supply assessment for Phase 1 b, as incorrectly stated by the commentor. COMMENT NO. 1-4 b. Solid Waste Plan In Wesfeld LLC v. City of Arcadia et al., No. BS 108923 the Superior Court's [sic] held that the City needed to consider the feasibility of a prohibition of using Styrofoam (expanded polystyrene) containers. An ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, to which we were referred in that case applies specifically to restaurants, because they are the primary users of Styrofoam in their take -out containers. A conversion to restaurant uses will generate far more Styrofoam, yet Westfield now hypocritically asserts by its application for an exemption that this impact is negligible. And going beyond this specific defect, Westfield does not even consider the large volume of food waste that its new proposed use will generate. RESPONSE NO. 1-4 This comment fails to consider the environmental analysis in the certified 2007 Addendum. The 2007 Addendum uses the California Integrated Waste Management Board's ( CIWMB) generation rate specified for "Shopping Center" uses, which accounts for retail and restaurant uses. Using CIWMB's separate generation rates for retail and restaurant uses instead of the shopping center rate would actually result in a reduction in anticipated solid waste generation. Specifically, for planning purposes, CIWMB has set forth a rate of 0.006 pounds per square foot per day for commercial retail uses and a rate of 0.005 pounds per square foot per day for restaurant uses. Applying these factors to the 91,500 square feet of retail uses and 23,500 square feet or restaurant uses results in 5 http:// www. ciwmb. ca.govlWasteCharlWasteGenRatesl accessed May 30, 2009. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita - Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 6 approximately 121.60 tons per year of solid waste or approximately 403.10 tons per year less than generated using the "shopping center" factor used in the 2007 Addendum. In addition, based on CIWMB's recent disposal rate, which accounts for diversion and recycling, Phase lb would dispose of approximately 346.3 tons per year of solid waste. Thus, the proposed modification to Phase 1 b would not result in an increase in solid waste generation when compared with the estimated generation for Phase lb set forth in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR. In addition, the mitigation measures set forth in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR that require incorporation of storage and collection recyclables into the project design, recycling of various materials, and collection of recyclables in future refuse collection contracts would continue to be implemented. Thus, impacts on solid waste resulting from Phase lb with the proposed modification would continue to be less than significant and no further mitigation measures are required. COMMENT NO. 1 -5 c. Traffic There were at least two intersections studied in the Phase lb Addendum that were very close to having a significant impact after mitigations - yet Westfield has not demonstrated that these intersections will remain under the impact threshold given the additional traffic generated from the expanded restaurant use. RESPONSE NO. 1 -5 The comment incorrectly suggests that there are two study intersections that are close to the significant impact level, and that additional traffic generated by the increased restaurant space would result in a significant impact. To create a significant impact, a project must cause an intersection to degrade to LOS E or F or must add more than 0.02 to the volume capacity ratio of an intersection already operating at LOS E or F. Based on the capacity calculations results summarized in Tables 5A (weekday) and 5C (Saturday), there are in fact no intersections close to being significantly impacted by Phase 1 b project traffic. On a weekday, there were three intersections projected to operate at LOS E. The maximum increase in volume /capacity ratio as a result of project traffic is 0.002. This means that the project would have to generate more than 10 times the amount of project traffic to create a significant impact at one of these three intersections. 8 Based on disposal rates of 3.1 tons per employee per year for restaurant uses and 0.3 tons per employee per year for retail (general merchandise) uses from hffn.l www.ciwmb.ca.aov/WasteChar/ WasteGenRates/ accessed May 30, 2009. Also assumes four employees per thousand square feet of restaurant uses and two employees per thousand square feet of retail uses. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 7 A significant impact could also be created if the additional project traffic caused an intersection to degrade to LOS E. On a weekday and on a Saturday the closest intersections to LOS E are as follows: Day Intersection Volume /Capacity & LOS Increment Weekday 8. Baldwin & Duarte 0.847 D 0.010 23. Santa Anita & Colorado 0.865 D 0.002 Saturday 3. Baldwin & 1 -210 EB Ramps 0.837 D 0.009 8. Baldwin & Duarte 0.877 D 0.052 Project traffic would have to increase by almost 50 percent before the Baldwin & Duarte intersection would operate at LOS E on a Saturday. Project traffic would have to increase by 18 times before Santa Anita & Colorado would operate at LOS E on a weekday, and five times before Baldwin & Duarte would operate at LOS E on a weekday. It is simply not reasonable to expect that the additional restaurant space would generate enough traffic to trigger a significant impact. COMMENT NO. 1 -6 In addition, conditions of approval for the Phase 1 b Addendum required careful monitoring of the pick up and drop off area for cars stacking beyond the design capacity. Yet Westfield does not propose to show that this area will perform adequately with the additional traffic created by the new restaurant uses. RESPONSE NO. 1-6 The new pick -up /drop off area is being monitored by shopping center management staff, mall security staff and the project's consulting traffic engineer. The area has been marked with red curb and with No Parking signs, and compliance with these signs and markings has been good. The area is being used for pick -up and drop off of passengers. Standing vehicles waiting for passengers to arrive have been observed, but never to the extent that congestion or queuing resulted. At no time has a queue into the circulation road been observed. In compliance with City requirements, Westfield will continue to monitor the operation of the pick -up /drop off area to avoid any queuing issues. There is no reason to believe that the addition of the requested restaurant space would negatively affect the operation of the pick -up and drop off area. City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 8 COMMENT NO. 1 -7 Finally, Westfield is silent as to how it can have an increase in parking demand without an increase in trip generation. RESPONSE NO. 1 -7 Parking demand can easily increase without a traffic increase as a result of a longer duration of stay. The proposed addition of restaurant space in Phase lb could result in patrons staying longer at the center as they both shopped and ate a meal. Therefore, the same number of in and out automobile trips could result in a larger parking requirement because the patrons would stay longer at the center and their cars would be parked longer — resulting in a larger instantaneous parking demand. This phenomenon is actually noted by the commentor two paragraphs later in the comment letter. COMMENT NO. 1 -8 d. Parking To meet peak parking demand, Westfield relied on the Santa Anita racetrack parking lots (Driveway D, and Racetrack Employee Lots) and other lots for 919 stalls, or 14% of total peak demand. The addition of new restaurant square footage will increase parking demand another 83 stalls. Yet Westfield offers no guarantee that Santa Anita Park will provide any overflow stalls at all (let alone almost 1000). Santa Anita Park has no obligation now or in the future to provide additional parking supply to Westfield, so where will these stalls come from? (Note: the entire Villa Madre Park and Ride structure has only 950 stalls.) RESPONSE NO. 1 -8 The 2007 Addendum included a comprehensive analysis of parking demand associated with implementation of Phase 1b. As described therein, the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the peak parking demand upon completion of Phase lb for every month of the year except December. In fact, during most days of the year, the center's parking supply would include more than 1,000 empty spaces. In addition, during the month of December the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would be sufficient to meet the demands of the center with the exception of December Saturdays. These four peak days of the year are the days that require that an off -site employee parking program be continued in order to meet the total parking demand during the holiday season. The comment correctly states that during the December 2004 count there were a total of 919 vehicles parked in the Race Track parking lots (main lot or Driveway D) on the busiest day of the year. However, this number does not represent the amount of off -site City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1 b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 9 parking needed in the future because it fails to take into account the 168 empty parking spaces that were found within the center nor does it take into account the new parking supply provided by Phase 1b. The total number of off -site holiday spaces needed is 728 spaces if the Phase 1 b increased restaurant space is approved. Westfield Santa Anita is required to submit to the City a parking management plan for off -site parking during the holiday period. The City must approve this off -site parking management plan. The plan does not have to include the Santa Anita Race Track parking lots, and Westfield recognizes that the race track parking may not be available in any given year. The certified 2007 Addendum for the Phase lb project outlined alternate off -site parking locations that would be considered as part of the supply for each year's holiday plan. Under current operations, Westfield is required to secure the rights to perk in off -site spaces on December weekends. This is the case regardless of whether or not the proposal to convert up to 13,500 square feet of retail GLA to restaurant GLA is approved. The City has complete approval authority over the annual off -site parking program. COMMENT NO. 1 -9 The Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the International Council of Shopping Centers provide guidelines for calculating parking requirements for regional shopping centers. When the percentage of non - retail uses is between 10% and 20% of total GLA (Westfield claims the total percentage of non - retail use is 13 %) ULI recommends a sliding scale for calculating parking ratios. An increase in restaurant uses in particular is considered to significantly increase parking demand, as patrons tend to stay longer. RESPONSE NO. 1 -9 First, we should point out that the project exceeds the City Zoning Code requirement of 5,882 spaces with the increased restaurant space in the project. A total of 6,204 spaces are provided at the mall. The certified 2007 Addendum for Phase lb correctly pointed out that Westfield Santa Anita would exceed the requirements of the City of Arcadia Zoning Code from a required parking supply perspective. As described above, the expanded center, even with Phase lb approved for additional restaurant space, would continue to exceed the City's Zoning Code requirements from a parking supply perspective. The certified 2007 Addendum for Phase 1 b went beyond the comparison of parking supply to Code requirements, and calculated the peak parking demand that the center was likely to experience. There are two methods for estimating the peak parking demand at a City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 10 regional shopping center — both based on Urban Land Institute (ULI) and International Council of Shopping Center (ICSC) procedures and data: the first method uses the ULI /ICSC national standard parking rate as adjusted by the amount of non - retail space within the center, and the second method treats the center as a mixed -use development and calculates the parking demands of the individual land uses within the development using the ULI Shared Parking model. The results using both methodologies are described below. ULI /ICSC Parking Rates The comment accurately states that the Urban Land Institute has a sliding scale for parking supply based on the amount of non - retail space in the center. Essentially, this methodology increases the parking demand rate by 0.03 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) for each percentage point of non - retail space between 10 percent and 20 percent. When a center exceeds 20% non - retail use, it is no longer a regional shopping center, but rather a mixed -use development. With the previously approved Phase lb restaurant totals, the Westfield Santa Anita shopping center would include 12.2 percent of its floor space in non - retail land uses. The proposed Phase lb restaurant space increase would change that percentage to 13.1 percent, representing an increase in non - retail space of less than one percent (13.1 % -12.2% = 0.9 %). Thus, following the ULI /ICSC recommendation, the center would increase its recommended parking supply by 44 spaces if the restaurant space in Phase 1 b increased by the requested 13,500 square feet of restaurant, as follows: 0.03 sp /1,000 sf x 1,469,539 sf = 44 spaces ULI Shared Parking Model The ULI report Parking at Shopping Centers, Second Edition also suggests that parking demand rates be calibrated to existing conditions at a particular center when possible. That is exactly what was done in the analysis of parking demand at Westfield Santa Anita in the Phase lb 2007 Addendum analysis. In fact, the Phase lb 2007 Addendum and the analysis accompanying the application for the increased restaurant space used the more conservative ULI Shared Parking model, calibrated to Westfield Santa Anita conditions, to estimate the peak parking demand at the site. The calibrated Shared Parking model predicted that the additional restaurant space would increase the parking demand on the busiest day of the year by 83 spaces and the City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1 b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 11 off -site holiday parking supply requirement would increase by that same 83 parking spaces. Thus, the comment asking that we utilize the sliding scale methodology for calculating the parking demand at the center is actually asking for a less conservative analysis methodology than was used in the determination of the peak parking demand. COMMENT NO. 1 -10 In the Phase 1 b Addendum, parking occupancy counts were conducted on December 18"' 2004 at 2:30 PM only and the conclusion proffered that the lots were completely filled. There is no accounting for cars turned away due to lack of parking, and no explanation as to why only one count on one particular date was performed, rather than multiple weekend peaks during the holiday season. Reliance on conclusions of the 2004 analysis is another example of how Westfield is using old and suspect data to present a rosy picture of current conditions (below). RESPONSE NO. 1 -10 The comment incorrectly states that the Phase 1 b 2007 Addendum concluded that the existing lots were completely filled. Table 14 on page 64 of the traffic study showed that there were 168 empty parking spaces in the shopping center parking lot during the busiest hour of the year. In terms of the number of surveys taken, the ULI and the ICSC found that the busiest hour of the year for shopping center parking demand occurs during the mid -day of the Saturday before Christmas. The parking counts conducted for the Phase 1 b parking study were collected at 2:30 P.M. on the Saturday before Christmas — the busiest hour of the year. So there was no need to collect data during other weekends. Newer counts taken during Christmas seasons since the approval of Phase 1 b would have been affected by construction activity. There is no way to "account for cars turned away due to lack of parking" as suggested in the comment. Any estimate would be speculative. COMMENT NO. 1 -11 The proposed parking mitigation allows Westfield to count only "leased" square footage in determining required parking. The Arcadia Municipal Code makes no distinction between leased space and space intended for a tenant's use but currently vacant. Under this rationale, if all available stalls are used to satisfy current peak parking demand, then Westfield must build more parking stalls to accommodate the future re -use of the Robinson's May department store. The mall should comply with the code. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase lb Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 12 RESPONSE NO. 1 -11 Westfield Santa Anita has always been in compliance with the City's Zoning Code requirements. The parking analysis done for the Westfield Santa Anita does account for all of the space within the mall — vacant or currently occupied. The parking analysis is based on a total of 1,469,539 square feet of GLA which includes all space within the mall. When the Shared Parking model was calibrated for use in the 2007 Addendum, the amount of parking demand was calculated based on the occupied square footage during Christmas 2004. That calibrated parking demand model was then applied to the entire expanded center (at full occupancy) so the effects of an occupied Robinsons -May department store building were indeed accounted for in the parking analysis. The mall does comply with the parking code, and in fact exceeds the amount of parking required by the code. COMMENT NO. 1 -12 e. Land Use With 23% of the Phase lb Expansion proposed to be devoted to restaurant, why is this project not evaluated as a mixed use project? Westfield claims the entire mall including all expansions falls under a 20% threshold. Even assuming that is a valid claim, would Westfield also claim that converting an additional 100,000 square feet of retail to restaurant use in the mall (to get to 20% of the total GLA) would have no environment [sic] impact? RESPONSE NO. 1 -12 As stated previously, Westfield Santa Anita contains approximately 1,469,539 square feet of GLA of shopping uses based on ULI's definition of GLA. As a result of the proposed request, up to 13,500 square feet of space previously allocated to retail uses and representing less than one percent of the existing GLA within the project site would be allowed to be used as restaurant space. Phase 1 b is a small addition to a larger existing regional shopping center and it is unrealistic to consider Phase lb in isolation. In addition, there has been no request made to convert an additional 100,000 square feet of retail uses to restaurant uses. The comment contends that the trip generation from the project would increase with the addition of restaurant space in Phase 1b. The trip generation estimates in the Phase 1b EIR were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineer's Trip Generation, 7 Edition as required by the City of Arcadia. This manual is a compilation of trip generation studies conducted across the nation that summarizes daily, peak hour, weekday City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1 b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 13 and Saturday trip characteristics of a wide variety of land uses. Retail shopping centers are one of the most well- documented land uses in the manual. The Institute of Transportation Engineers and the International Council of Shopping Centers have defined the characteristics of a regional shopping center as a collection of land uses where no more than 20 percent of the uses within the development are non - retail uses (e.g. restaurants, cinema, office, etc.). If the non - retail portion of the center is greater than 20 percent of the building area, then the development should be treated as a mixed - use development and not as a retail shopping center from both trip generation and parking demand standpoints. Since the Westfield Santa Anita center has only 13 percent non - retail uses, the use of the shopping center trip generation rate in the EIR traffic analysis is the appropriate rate. The trip generation rate of a regional shopping center does not change from the rates shown in the Trip Generation manual when there are minor changes in the non - retail portion of the center. The dominance of the retail uses in a regional shopping center with 80 percent or more of the floor area dedicated to retail shops establishes the trip characteristics of the project and the minor addition of restaurant space would not change the total trip pattern of the center. The regional shopping center trip generation rates in the Trip Generation manual cover the entire range of non - retail space up to the 20 percent level and therefore as long as the project being tested is within the definition of a regional shopping center the rates in the manual would apply to the development. Thus, the trip generation rate for the Phase 1 b development would not change as a result of the addition of the Phase lb restaurant space because the Westfield Santa Anita center still fits within the definition of a regional shopping center. COMMENT NO. 1 -13 f. "Piecemealing" The staff report accepts uncritically that the timing of Westfield's application is coincidental, and that filing this exemption application immediately after the opening of Phase 1 B happened because Westfield discovered the infeasibility of its project only after it opened. The omission of the full impact of the restaurant expansion from the Phase lb Expansion EIR Addendum allowed Westfield (it hopes) to avoid consideration of the potential environmental impacts of this expansion, including those discussed above. Yet, CEQA does not allow a project to be segmented into bite -sized pieces to avoid consideration of the full environmental impacts of the project. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal. 3d 263,283 -284 (1975); see McQueen v. Board of Directors, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136, 1143 -1144 (1988); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal. App. 3d 692, 716 (1990); Arviv Enterprises, Inc. v. South Valley Area Planning Com., 101 Cal. App. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 14 4th 1333,1345 -1347 (2002) (separate applications from same developer to build various numbers of houses on same street comprised single project requiring EIR). RESPONSE NO. 1 -13 In response to changes in the economic climate, Westfield submitted its application in March, 2009, before the opening of Phase 1b. In addition, as discussed in Response to Comment No. 1 -1 above, Westfiield's request is to transfer up to 13,500 square feet of permitted retail space to up to 13,500 square feet of permitted restaurant space at an existing facility. As noted above, the Santa Anita center contains approximately 1,469,539 square feet of GLA of shopping uses based on ULI's definition of GLA. As a result of the request, up to 13,500 square feet of space previously allocated to retail uses and representing less than one percent of the existing GLA within the project site will be allowed to be uses as restaurant space. As demonstrated by the response to comments herein and the letter to Lisa Flores regarding the environmental implications of the proposed modification to Phase 1 b, "piecemealing" to avoid the full impact of the transfer of retail uses to restaurant uses has not occurred. Rather, these documents demonstrate that implementation of Phase 1 b, including the proposed modification to transfer retail space to restaurant space, would not result in any new significant impacts not already identified in the 2007 Addendum and Certified EIR. All of the impacts of Phase 1 b with the proposed modification would be within the envelope of impacts for Phase lb evaluated in the 2007 Addendum. COMMENT NO. 1 -14 3. Westfield Has Created an Entitlement "House of Cards" By Altering in 2009 Uses Found in 2007 to be No More Severe Than Were Analyzed in 2000 As with the Phase 1b EIR addendum, Westfield continues to construct an entitlement "house of cards ", requesting this amendment to a prior addendum to an almost 10 year old EIR that has very little to do with what has been constructed by Westfield since. Although Westfield declined to title its 2000 EIR a "Master EIR," that was what it was. Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations, Section 15175(b)(3) (an EIR for a "project that consists of smaller individual projects which will be carried out in phases. "). The CEQA Guidelines recognize that a Master EIR may not be used if it "was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project." (Ibid, Section 15179(a) (1).) The only exception is if certain findings are made which the City did not make or other actions are taken which Westfield did not take. Westfield used a seven year old EIR to do its Addendum, and now uses a nine -year old EIR in an effort to alter its Addendum. But the principle that stale information may not be the basis for environmental decision making is not limited to Master EIRs: City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 15 An entity with the large resources and influence of Westfield can easily manipulate the CEQA process to suit its ends, unless that entity is held accountable by close public scrutiny of its actions and the checks and balances afforded by community stakeholders like Santa Anita Park and Caruso Affiliated. Council approval of this amendment would leave no corrective remedy other than litigation, which is not in the community's interest. RESPONSE NO. 1.14 The Addendum certified by the City in 2007 updated the environmental analyses set forth in the Certified EIR and concluded that the Phase 1 b project would not have any new significant impacts. In addition, all of the development completed to date by Westfield is consistent with that anticipated in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR is a Program EIR and is not a Master EIR as set forth under CEQA Guidelines Section 15175.' The Program EIR contemplated phasing of the project and stated that future projects would be eligible for a streamlined environmental review as long as the conditions requiring a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 would not be met. In accordance with CEQA, the 2007 Addendum to the Certified EIR demonstrated that Phase lb would not meet the requirements for preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines. No "house of cards" has been created. Rather, the Applicant has used the Certified EIR as envisioned and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. In addition, Westfield has followed all of the City of Arcadia's entitlement processes and requirements that apply to all applicants within the City. Although not applicable since the Certifted EIR is not a Master EIR, CEQA Guidelines Section 15179(b) specifies conditions under which a Master EIR may indeed still be used if it is greater than five years old. City of Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase 1b Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 16 LETTER NO.2 Frank De Marco, Jr. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. 285 W. Huntington Beach P.O. Box 60014 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6014 COMMENT NO. 2-1 We acknowledge receipt of Notice of Hearing on June 2, 2009 where Westfield Santa Anita Mall will ask for an amendment to Architectural Review Number ADR2005 -026 and City Council Resolution Number 6562 for a proposed expansion of Phase lb of the above - referenced Mall property. While we have not completed a comprehensive review of the proposal, we cannot help but notice that the request for additional restaurant footage may increase the demand for additional parking which, at best, is at a premium at the mall location now. We wish to advise, and to make it clear to all concerned, that Santa Anita Park is not under any obligation to provide parking spaces for use by Westfield Mall customers during the Christmas season, or otherwise, at any time after December 26, 2008. There are no plans to entertain requests from Westfield for further use of parking stalls at Santa Anita now or in the future. RESPONSE NO. 2-1 In addition to receiving notice regarding the hearing on June 2, 2009, the commentor was also on the noticing list for the May 12, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing regarding modification of Phase 1 b. Notice of the application was provided pursuant to the City's standard guidelines. The 2007 Addendum included a comprehensive analysis of parking demand associated with implementation of Phase 1b. As described therein, the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the peak parking demand upon completion of Phase 1 b for every month of the year except December. In fact, during most days of the year, the center's parking supply would include more than 1,000 empty spaces. In addition, during the month of December the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would be sufficient to meet the demands of the center with the exception of December Saturdays. These four peak days of the year are the days that require that an off -site employee parking program be continued in order to meet the total parking demand during the holiday season. As discussed in the 2007 Addendum, Westfield will submit to the City an off -site parking management plan each year to address parking demand during December City f Arcadia Westfield Santa Anita — Phase lb Matrix Environmental June 2, 2009 Page 1 weekends. As a result of the proposed modification to Phase 1 b, the number of off -site employee parking spaces provided in the parking management plan to address demand on December Saturdays would increase by approximately 83 spaces due to the increased restaurant space. During all other days of the year, there would be sufficient parking on- site to accommodate the additional 83 parking spaces. The parking management plan does not have to include the Santa Anita Race Track parking lots, and Westfield recognizes that the race track parking may not be available in any given year. The certified 2007 Addendum for the Phase 1 B project outlined alternate off -site parking locations that would be considered as part of the supply for each year's holiday plan. ronmental ) r-I June Page 2 Proposed Conditions: 1. Along Baldwin Avenue, replant twenty-one (21) missing trees in the exlsfing empty tree wells, of a species as approved by the Planning Department, within thirty (30) days of these conditions taking effect (see attached photo examples). 2. In lieu of providing any updated EIR, Traffic Study, or Shared Parking Analysis, in order to justify transferring 13,500 SF to more parking Intensive restaurant use, the applicant will provide additional stalls and trees as follows: From Arcadia Zoning Code: Restaurant = 10 /1000 SF (minus) Mall retail = 4.75/1000 SF = 5.25/1000 x 13,500 SF/stall = 71 parking stalls x 1 tree /4 stalls = 18 trees Excess stalls and trees already on -site, if any, may be used for this purpose. If none are available, the applicant shall submit a she plan indicating the required additional parking and trees for Planning staff approval. The trees shall be a species of shade tree, 18" box minimum, .set in tree wells in the portions of existing parking fields with no trees. The applicant will obtain a permit to make any necessary site alterations to provide the stalls and trees prior to any restaurants in the 13,500 SF area obtaining permits. The applicant will complete said alterations prior to any restaurants in the 13,500 SF area obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. 1 •. s r far f t t �F-.z. �4t eF 5f 2k � it Lt tf[i"S, Ay, � " �� t � Ws,r 1' 'ed ._ A y a ,�t� ` y ✓' �d4g� F� g,{ ... i de ti -. v ",�,• x `i ��1rHC ; ;.�i�{ t ; � S 't y a _,L�a ,yl �a• t ,_ r .,. ' q r l K (• °1 f fi r Mgt � y ., '� fit', { . ^, ,�• -. pp Y f y a W t. � � nY� S�`✓ �r � 2t a -l€ M (ti Attachment No. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Joel S. Moskowitz Caruso Affiliated Holdings 101 The Grove Drive Los Angeles, CA 90036 (323) 900 -8100 Attorney for Santa Anita Associates, LLC BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ARCADIA In the matter of: Application of Westfield Corporation, Inc. PRESENTATION OF SANTA ANITA for Amendment to Architectural Design ASSOCIATES, LLC ON THE Review No. ADR 2005 -026 and City INAPPLICABILITY OF THE "CLASS Council Resolution No. 6562 for the 1" CEQA EXEMPTION TO Phase lb expansion of the Westfield Santa WESTFIELD'S RESTAURANT EXPANSION Anita Mall at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TABLE OF C ONTENTS 1 . INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... ............................... 3 A. Westfield's Application ....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 B. Categorical Exemptions ....................................................................................................... ............................... 3 C. The "Class 1" Categorical Exemption ................................................................................. ............................... 5 D. Issues Before the Council .................................................................................................... ............................... 5 2. IN REQUESTING PERMISSION TO INSTALL 13,500 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT USE INTO UNUSED SPACE, WESTFIELD IS OBVIOUSLY REQUESTING MORE THAN A "NEGLIGIBLE OR NO EXPANSION OF USE BEYOND THAT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION." .............................................................................. ............................... 7 3. WESTFIELD'S "PROJECT" IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE MALL, BUT AN ENTITLEMENT TO INSTALL PROHIBITED RESTAURANT USE IN 13,500 VACANT SQUARE FEET ................................ ............................... 8 4. THE IMPACTS OF WESTFIELD'S PROPOSED PROJECT ARE FAR MORE THAN "NEGLIGIBLE." .....11 A. Introduction .................... ............................... ........11 ............................................................. ............................... B. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... ............................. 1. The Air Quality Analysis of Westfield's Own 2000 EIR Negates the Insignificance of The Impacts of its CurrentProject ................................................................................................................................. .............................11 ` 2 ... The Restaurant Conversion Would Have Significant Air Quality Impacts Whether Considered as Part of i Phase lb or Individually .................................................................................................................. ............................. C. Parkin 14 D. Water ..................................................................................................................................... ............................. E. Wastewater ........................................................................................................................... ............................. F. Solid Waste ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 26 G. Global Warming ................................................................................................................... ............................. H. Land Use ............................................................................................................................. ............................... 29 I. Noise ...................................................................................................................................... ............................. J. Population .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 29 K . Traffic .......................................................................................... ............................. 5. EVEN IF WESTFIELD OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR AN EXEMPTION (WHICH IT DOES NOT) THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT WESTFIELD'S PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT REMOVES THE EXEMPTION ............................................................. ............................... 32 6. THE CITY COUNSEL SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND CALL FOR PREPARATIONOF AN INITIAL STUDY ................................................................................. ............................... 35 26 I 27 28 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INTRODUCTION A. Westfield's Application Westfield Corporation, Inc. ( "Westfield ") has applied to amend a prohibition' placed on its Phase lb (The Promenade) expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita Mall which limited The Promenade to 10,000 square feet of restaurant space. The requested amendment proposes to far more than double The Promenade's allowed restaurant space by 13,500 square feet, creating a total of 23,500 square feet of restaurant space. This would be done by installing restaurants in currently vacant space. The proposed change, according to Westfield, is "[d]ue to the current economic climate," causing Westfield to be without retail tenants for the space. (Staff Report (May 12, 2009), p. 2.) As for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA," Cal. Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) the Staff Report said only this: "This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as noted on the attached Notice of Exemption." (Id.) At the Council's meeting on June 3, 2009 Caruso Affiliated ( "Caruso ") and others, including the Chamber of Commerce, appeared and objected to this proposed determination that Westfield's project is entitled to an exemption from CEQA. The Council closed the public hearing, and after discussion continued its deliberations to July 7, 2009 and reopened the hearing to allow further public input. B. Categorical Exemptions A "categorical exemption" is one of "a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from" the requirements of CEQA. (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21084.) If a project is one of those described, no environmental analysis of the effects of the project is done. Before any category of projects is placed on the list, "the Secretary of the Resources Agency shall make a finding that the listed classes of projects referred to in this section do not have a significant effect on the environment." (Id.) Once a public agency properly finds that a project fits within one of the listed 1 Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for the approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 3 1 categories, it need not consider whether that project may have a significant effect on the 2 environment. 3 A finding that a project is categorically exempt must be contrasted from a finding that the 4 project will not, in fact, have a significant effect on the environment. If a project is not exempt, 5 then the public agency must do an "initial study" to see if a project would in that particular case 6 have a significant effect. If not, then the agency will prepare a "negative declaration." 7 If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this 8 division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt 9 a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the to proposed project in either of the following circumstances: 11 (1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the 12 lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 13 (2) An initial study identifies potentially significant effects on the 14 11 environment, but 15 (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to 16 by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are 17 released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a 18 point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and 19 (B) there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before 20 the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on 21 the environment. 22 (Public Resources Code § 21080(c).) 23 The distinction between a categorical exemption and a negative declaration is depicted in 24 the excerpt from California Resources Agency, "CEQA Process Flow Chart," 21 h=:Hceres.ca.gov/cega/flowchart/index.html attached as "Exhibit A." The critical difference is 26 that in the case of a categorical exemption the agency does not look at whether the project would 27 have a significant environmental effect; it looks only at whether the project fits into one of the 29 categories. If it does, that is the end of environmental review. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ', 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. The "Class 1" Categorical Exemption In this case, the Staff Report recommended a determination that Westfield's restaurant expansion fits within the first of the listed exemptions, "Class 1." Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all - inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use. (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations, § 15301.) The description continues with 16 specific changes of use – from fish stocking by the California Department of Fish and Game to installation within -an existing medical waste generator of a steam sterilization unit – none of which has been argued apply to this case. D. Issues Before the Council Because Westfield's project is not claimed to be one of the 16 itemized subcategories, the question before the Council then comes down to whether the conversion of 13,500 square feet of vacant space to restaurants nevertheless involves "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." As the Guideline provides: "The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." Before the Council are two legal issues and several factual issues, all of which go to the question of what is the "existing use," as set forth in the exemption. Westfield first argued that the "existing use" does not mean the present use being made of the property (in this case, vacant space — no use at all). Westfield would instead refer us to the iypothetical and nonexistent use that it could have made of the property, but did not. As we will ;laborate, this argument fails based on the plain language of the Guideline. The second argument is that the "project" in this case is not properly described as permitti restaurant use on 13,500 square feet where such use is currently forbidden, despite that being the Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 request Westfield made in its application. Rather, says Westfield, the "project" is allowing more restaurant use within a large mall. Although this approval would still more than double the area allocated to restaurants, the argument goes that this change is dwarfed by the existing impacts of the surrounding, unrelated retail uses. This argument will be shown to contradict CEQA's definition of "project," the text of the Guideline, and CEQA's underlying purpose and policies. Turning to the factual issues, the Council heard much argument about the effects of the doubling of restaurant use on such impacts as parking, traffic, sewage and waste generation. Westfield throughout argued that the effects of restaurant use were not much different than the effects of the (nonexistent) retail use. While Caruso refuted these arguments at the last hearing, and we will here again, they are arguments that Westfield can properly make only in justifying a negative declaration (which looks at the potential impacts of this project and prior environmental I analyses) not in justifying an exemption (which looks only at the project's description and whether it fits into the defined category). Westfield concedes that it is proposing a change in the use in the 13,500 square feet. It is premising its argument on "whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use," on its version of the supposedly small environmental impacts of the change, in an effort to show that the expansion in use is no more than "negligible." Of course, this is an argument that belongs in an initial study, not to justify this exemption. We will show that the doubling of restaurant uses will indeed have significant impacts unless mitigated. But this is not our burden. The exemption Guidelines look not to impacts but to uses, and changing from no use at all to this intense use is necessarily a change in use of infinite dimensions. Westfield can no more get a Class 1 exemption to fit its project, than could Cinderella's evil stepsisters squeeze into the glass slipper. But even assuming it could, we will show that the environmental impacts of this project disable the application even of an exemption properly obtained, under an exception in the CEQA Guidelines themselves. Our purpose in presenting the impacts of Westfield's proposal is more than to refute Westfield's misplaced arguments. CEQA asks public agencies to "consider environmental consequences when making decisions ... so that major consideration is given to preventing Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 environmental damage." (Manaster & Selmi, California Environmental Law and Land Use Practice, § 20.02[1] (2009), and cases cited.) The City Council should want to consider these impacts to protect its residents, and we present the impacts of this decision so that the Council will see that the right thing to do in this case is for the Council to reject Westfield's position that it may dispense with all environmental considerations of its project. Westfield told the Council that it did not request the exemption from CEQA. But the very frenetic vigor with which it grasps at that offered exemption is the most eloquent reason for the Council to reject the exemption and call for the preparation of an initial study. 2. IN REQUESTING PERMISSION TO INSTALL 13,500 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT USE INTO UNUSED SPACE, WESTFIELD IS OBVIOUSLY REQUESTING MORE THAN A "NEGLIGIBLE OR NO EXPANSION OF USE BEYOND THAT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION." The first question before the Council is "whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use." Westfield seeks to interpret "existing use" not as referring to the use presently being made of the property, but as the currently permitted use. While, as detailed below even a change from existing retail use to restaurant use would present a host of impacts that could not sensibly be called "negligible," Westfield's argument does not get out of the starting gate. "Existing use" clearly means "existing use," not a hypothetical, nonexistent future use. This can be seen clearly from the language of the Guideline itself. Rather than directing us to look to an allowable but future use as our baseline, the Guideline emphasizes that we are to consider whether the change involves "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." (Emphasis supplied.) The "agency's determination" is, of course, the determination as to whether the project is exempt. It is clearly not the decision years ago to allow retail use, as Westfield argues. If there is any doubt as to whether "use" means "use" or "permitted use," we need again look no farther than the Guideline. The exemption applies to ". . . the ... permitting.... [or] licensing ... of existing public or private structures ... involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination." When the authors of the Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Guideline wanted to speak of "permitting," and when they wanted to speak of "use," they knew how to say so and to differentiate them. If they wanted to say "permitted use," they would have. When interpreting regulatory language, the aim is "not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted ....'(Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1858.) The policy underlying this plain meaning of the Guideline is obvious. If an exemption applies, compliance with CEQA is dispensed with without performing any environmental analysis. If a use exists only in a prior environmental document rather than the actual world, whether a wholly different use is a "negligible expansion" is necessarily also hypothetical and can only be analyzed with reference to current environmental documentation. But that is what an initial study and a negative declaration are for. The threshold for this exemption is that the actual, existing use is either not expanded at all, or expanded so negligibly that it could not have any environmental impact. Once the Council reads the plain words of the Guideline, that transforming 13,500 square feet from no use at all to restaurant use is obviously and inescapably an expansion of the physical use being made of this vacant property today, its argument collapses. 3. WESTFIELD'S "PROJECT" IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE MALL, BUT AN ENTITLEMENT TO INSTALL PROHIBITED RESTAURANT USE IN 13,500 VACANT SQUARE FEET Westfield next argues that the "project" before the Council is not the vacant 13,500 square feet at all, but rather the entire mall. From this premise, Westfield constructs the argument that more than doubling the amount of restaurant space in this vast mall must surely be a "negligible expansion" of use. As is detailed later, this argument is ultimately doomed, as adding 13,500 square feet of restaurant use to the existing mall (or even to the hypothetical mall that Westfield wished to, but could not build) is more than a "negligible expansion." This can be clearly seen even without the environmental analysis we provide, because even if the whole mall is considered, then the 13,500 square feet of additional restaurant space in Phase lb equates to a 13% increase in that use — still not negligible for the purpose of a CEQA exemption that assumes no reasonably possible environmental impact. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 But the premise of the argument fails, because the "project" before the Council is not the mall, but the particular change that Westfield requested. As noted above, a CEQA exemption is one of "a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment." (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21084, emphasis supplied.) It would make no sense whatever to insert the Westfield Mall as the thing that Westfield seeks to have determined to not have a significant effect on the environment. Its own EIR found otherwise. Westfield's argument crashes on.the shoals of the statutory language. Without question, the "project" in this case is the proposed entitlement to install restaurant use in 13,500 square feet of vacant space. CEQA defines a "Project" as "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which ... involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21065; Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations § 15378.) Westfield's application is clearly for an "entitlement for use" of 13,500 square feet for restaurant use. It is not proposing any change that relates to anything else. If any other applicant appeared before the Council seeking an entitlement to construct 13,500 square feet of restaurants where they are currently prohibited, the Council would have no trouble seeing this as a "project' under CEQA, and as not entitled to a Class 1 exemption. Westfield, however, argues from two wholly irrelevant lines of case law. The first line seeks to prevent a developer from chopping a large project into many little ones, each with insignificant impact, but cumulatively with major consequences. The leading case I in this line is Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) where an EIR on a decision to occupy a portion of an office was held to be inadequate because it did not consider later phases of development in the building, and where the principle was established that to fully evaluate environmental effects we must consider a "Project" as a whole, and not its segments. The second line of cases seeks to require environmental analyses prepared early, at the first I Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 9 1 -2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 `necessary step in a chain of events which would culminate in physical impact on the , nvironment," which is achieved by characterizing all of those necessary steps as one "project." (Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. Of Education, 32 Cal.3d 779, 797 (1982).) Thus, for example, in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Com., 13 Cal.3d 263, 281 (1975) the California Supreme Court held that the annexation of property by a City was a part of a "project" because in that case it was part of an overall plan by a developer who intended to urbanize agricultural property. Later that same year, by contrast, a Court of Appeal held that the detachment of property from a recreation and park district was held not to be a "project" because any proposed development did not depend on this action, which did not change the uses to which the land may be put. (Simi Valley Recreation & Park Dist. v. Local Agency Formation Com., 51 Cal.App.3d 648, 665 -666 (1975). See Kaufman & Broad -South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist., 9 Cal.App.4th 464, 473 -474 (1992).) In relying on these lines of cases, Westfield has wholly lost its moorings. The premise of these cases, as in all interpretations and application of CEQA, was set in the first California Supreme Court case to interpret CEQA, Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors, 8 Cal.3d 247, 259 (1972), which laid the foundation of the law for all following CEQA cases, and where the Court laid down the guiding principle that CEQA is "to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (See also Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission, 16 Ca1.4th 105, 112 (1997); East Peninsula Education Council, Inc., v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District et al., 210 Cal. App.3d 155 (1989).) In an ultimate irony, and display of gall, Westfield seeks to so fashion an interpretation of "project" as used in the exemption not to bring in future impacts of later actions, but rather in order to bury the effects of what it is applying for and thus avoid any environmental analysis. The judges who decided Friends of Mammoth would not think that could "afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Westfield's argument not only offends the basic principle of CEQA interpretation, it ignoreE the broader principle, expressly applied to CEQA exemptions, that "`Exceptions to the general Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 rule of a statute are to be strictly construed.' (Barnes v. Chamberlain (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 762, 767.)" East Peninsula Education Council, Inc., v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District et al., 210 Cal. App.3d 155 (1989).) The only discretionary decision before the Council is whether to grant Westfield an entitlement to install 13,500 square feet of restaurants into vacant space. That is a lot of restaurant space. Westfield's argument that no environmental analysis should be done of this change does not pass the "smell test," and withers under any serious legal consideration. The Council should proceed to an initial study. 4. THE IMPACTS OF WESTFIELD'S PROPOSED PROJECT ARE FAR MORE THAN "NEGLIGIBLE." A. Introduction As noted above, when CEQA exemptions apply, no environmental analysis whatsoever is done, so therefore Westfield's effort to justify the exemption based on its project's supposed lack of impacts is irrelevant. It is also incorrect, as in fact Westfield's proposed change will have far more than negligible impacts. We cover those impacts in this section. Before going into detail, however, we note at the outset that Westfield in each case compares its projected restaurant use with the non - existent retail use that it could have — but did not — make of the vacant 13,500 square feet. As was shown in Section 2 above, however, in deciding whether an expansion of use is "negligible," the comparison is with actual present use, not permitted but non - existent use. But even taking on Westfield on its own, erroneous terms, the change it proposes is much more than negligible. B. Air Quality 1. The Air Quality Analysis of Westfield's Own 2000 EIR Negates the Insignificance of The Impacts of its Current Project Westfield relies on the certification of its "Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Program Environmental Impact Report, Final" (September 5, 2000) (the "2000 EIR ") to somehow justify the insignificance of the installation of restaurants in these 13,500 square feet. It does the opposite, and the EIR's air quality analysis illustrates this perfectly. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 The 2000 EIR specifically found that air quality impacts of the mall project were '`significant and unavoidable." (2000 EIR, p. 1 -8.) As a result, according to the 2000 EIR: "[T]he City must prepare a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" before it can approve the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision- making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental impacts and considered the adverse impacts to be acceptable." (Ibid.) The reason that the 2000 EIR found that the air quality impacts were significant is that comparing the projected emissions from the Mall to the "significance thresholds" of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, "[t]he major automotive exhaust pollutants, ROG, NOx and CO are seen to be well above the SCAQMD's advisory threshold for both the project and related growth." (Id. at 4 -27, 4 -29.) Accordingly, the City adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that expressed its desire to have the mall. The City got the mall. Now, as is detailed below, the installation of restaurants will increase the emissions from the 13,500 square feet both as compared to the current use as unoccupied empty space, and as hypothetical retail space. In attempting to establish the insignificance of these emissions, Westfield argues that the entire mall is still the project. Not only is this legally incorrect (above) but Westfield forgets that the entire mall was found to have significant impacts, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations did not cover this latest change, which Westfield had not proposed in 2000. Westfield acknowledges that certain pollutants, specifically PM were not ever- examined in the 2000 Certified EIR because no thresholds had been adopted by SCAQMD at that time. In spite of that fact, Westfield happily concludes in the 2007 EIR Addendum that for PM2.5, Phase lb would have no significant impact. The explanation offered is that air quality has steadily improved in the Basin, because older, more polluting cars are replaced with newer models. We arer to ignore the fact that overall miles driven in Southern California increases dramatically every year, as do other mobile source emissions from construction equipment and expanding commerce. Westfield admits that in 2007 the Basin is "far from attainment" of NAAQS thresholds for 0 PM10 and 2 2000 EIR, p. 5 -1 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 established by the AWMD for a regional "shopping center ". For example, the addition of significant new employees (see Population discussion below), will generate increased traffic and parking demands. Restaurants have increased energy requirements for cooling and cooking. Cooking exhaust from 13,500 square feet of additional restaurant use, contains grease, carbon monoxide, PM 2.5 particulates, and other carcinogenic compounds akin to the byproducts of smoking cigarettes. The SCAQMD impact thresholds for PM 2.5 are relatively low (only 55 lbs /day) and it is quite conceivable that 13,500 alone could produce more than that volume of PM 2.5 emissions, especially if there are wood burning pizza ovens or charbroilers in the new restaurants. In addition to being a potential odor and health issue for residents living in the vicinity, a concentration of restaurant uses may contribute to degraded air quality for restaurant patrons and visitors to the mall. Perhaps this is accounted for in the "shopping center" standard, used by Westfield in its prior air quality analysis, but now we are discussing a new project that is 100% restaurant use, or at best, a mixed use project (by ULI definition) that is at least 23% restaurant. And, of course, were Westfield to recognize controlling CEQA law that the "project" in this case is the conversion of 13,500 square feet to restaurant use, its argument of insignificance would evaporate completely. But the whole point of Westfield seeking an exemption is that it does not wish to do the analysis, and certainly does not want to mitigate the air quality impacts of its proposal. Westfield simply cannot realize its desire consistent with complying with the requirements of CEQA. C. Parking Westfield assures us that the current parking supply is adequate, even with the addition 13,500 square feet of a more parking- intensive use like restaurants, because the existing supply (6,204 stalls) exceeds City of Arcadia code requirements (5,744 stalls). In fact, compliance with local codes, ordinances and statutes does not assure the avoidance of environmental impacts. To 3 Emissions of Carcinogenic Components from Commercial Kitchens in Hong Kong http://www.informedesign.umn.edu/Rs ' Westfield Santa Anita Expansion EIR Addendum, January, 2007. p. 61, Table 4 -2 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PM Even so Westfield never even attempts to show that the cumulative emissions of PM25 from Phase la and Phase lb are within the 2000 EIR "envelope ", as it does for other emission types. Moreover, Westfield also wants us to forget that in the ensuing years the many additional mitigations argued by Westfield as feasible for the neighboring Caruso project are, by necessary admission, feasible for Westfield. The improved economics of solar energy, wind power, and the increased prevalence of alternative fuels for transportation and electric energy production suggest but a few of the new feasible mitigations for air quality impacts. Even limiting the discussion solely to restaurants, mitigations for air quality impacts can include catalytic converters for restaurant charbroiling equipment, and specialized equipment to trap grease and particulate emissions from exhaust hoods. For example, Refrigerated delivery trucks can be provided with electric outlets at loading docks so they don't have to run their diesel engines while parking and unloading at Mall restaurants. These measures can be required of Westfield by the City, and required by Westfield of its restaurant tenants through a tenant lease clause, in order to reduce incremental impacts of more intensive uses like restaurants, whether or not the air quality impact is ever reduced to insignificance. In sum, Westfield's own EIR analysis concedes that the Mall has a significant unavoidable adverse effect on the environment. Westfield argues that the Mall is the project. If so, then the City's old Statement of Overriding Considerations does not cover this proposed change. And, moreover, Westfield is now obligated to implement all presently feasible mitigations. 2. The Restaurant Conversion Would Have Significant Air Quality Impacts Whether Considered as Part of Phase lb or Individually Westfield would fare no better if it considered its Phase lb as the "project." Westfield states: "The use of Phase lb would continue to be characterized as a regional shopping center." Westfield considers Phase lb by itself a "shopping center" when it is convenient to do so, even though the additional restaurant square footage will give it 23% non - retail uses, beyond the ULI definition for a regional shopping center, where non- retail uses are less than 20% of GLA. The addition of a more intensive use may have impacts beyond the operational emissions Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 13 the contrary, such regulations may be adopted specifically to encourage ordered development in a fashion that requires significant environmental impacts to be mitigated. Compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code ( "AMC ") does not guarantee an adequate parking supply at the Westfield mall, especially given the relative leniency of the Arcadia code relative to "regional shopping centers" in Arcadia, of which there is exactly one. Parking at a regional shopping center is most appropriately analyzed using national, not local standards, in combination with actual counts taken at the shopping center over several peak days. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For purposes of achieving the minimum parking requirement at the lowest cost, Westfield uses the Arcadia Municipal Code, which it interprets to permit nearly 250,000 square feet of tenant space (excluding the mall common area) to be excluded from a parking requirement calculated on gross leasable area ( "GLA "). Note that the ULI defines GLA as "the total floor area designed for the tenants occupancy and exclusive use" (ULI — Shopping center Development Handbook, 1985). In contrast, the Arcadia Municipal Code definition of GLA "essentially includes all the areas inside the buildings for which tenants pay rent (exclusive of non - rented common area like the center court area and pedestrian corridors) ". Further, the AMC allows Westfield to "exclude service areas within shopping center tenant stores and service areas that occupy less than 25% of the gross square footage of the stores in excess of 50,000 sf." This is unique to Arcadia — a seemingly arbitrary and generous reduction - nowhere does the ULI or any other recognized retail industry guideline tell us that department stores and other large retail uses are typically 25% "service area ", or why that area should reasonably be excluded from the calculation of parking demand. Nevertheless, Westfield takes full advantage of that exclusion without ever demonstrating that, in fact, 250,000 square feet (almost 17% of total mall building area) is actually devoted to unleasable "service areas" in tenant stores, (and that no rent is paid on that area). Without a verifiable inventory of service area as defined by the code, Westfield is able to reduce total ' Westfield's 2000 EIR includes a breakdown of floor area based on Mall Store GLA, and Department Store GBA, less 25% "Service Areas" (Table 2 -1, Page. 2 -6). Note both mall store and department store areas on this table are "Per Westfield's Rent Roll" and clearly do not include non - rented mall common areas and pedestrian corridors. Thus the mall square footage upon which subsequent expansions were based is 1,098,596 sf, corresponding to the 2007 Phase lb EIR Addendum, which is "net square footage ", (i.e. net of common areas typically excluded from parking requirements) Westfield cannot now claim that the "City Adjustment" reducing GBA to GLA is intended to exclude those common areas — they were never counted in the first place. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 15 1 required parking by up to 1,200 stalls .6 It is commonly understood that efficient planning of the 2 typical enclosed regional mall, makes the difference between GLA and GBA no more than three to 3 five percent of total GBA at most (excluding mall common areas and anchor pads). The simple 4 reason for this is that the mall developer wants to charge rent and thereby realize income on as 5 much of the gross building area it constructs as possible. Westfield fails to demonstrate that their 6 case is any different. Similarly for department stores like Nordstrom and Macy's, the typical non- 7 sales area is very rarely even 10 %- 15% of GBA, and of that, a very small portion is dedicated s specifically to "employee use, storage, and mechanical areas and employee restrooms" as specified 9 in the AMC. 10 Note that that prior to the 2000 EIR, and rightly or wrongly, Westfield deducted 25% of 11 department store area when calculating GLA required parking, and took no deduction for mall 12 shops or restaurants, which then accounted for only 36% of total square footage (it is not indicated 13 how much of the total GBA was non- retail use and restaurant prior to 2000). For Phase la and lb, 19 Westfield again deducted 25% for department stores, plus another 10% for all mall shops, 15 restaurants, and other non - retail uses, including those in the original center, which now accounted 16 for nearly 50% of total square footage. The total "adjustment" converting GBA to GLA was 11 260,168 gsf, virtually all of the incremental GBA added to the mall in Phase 1 a and Phase 1 b 18 combined. In other words, for purposes of determining parking impacts, Westfield wants Arcadia 19 to accept that all but 13% of the current expansion simply does not exist And for the vague and 20 uncertain eventual Phase 2, Westfield offers the same proposition. 21 It is no wonder that parking has become so problematic at the mall in the past several 22 years, because as each Phase of expansion has occurred, Westfield has gotten a substantially less 23 demanding parking requirement. If Westfield may rely on the Arcadia Municipal Code and 29 25 6 250,000 sf x 4.75 stalls /1000sf = 1187 stalls. 26 ' It must also be mentioned that recommended ULI parking ratios typically factor in stock rooms and other non - customer areas in retail stores. Had Westfield set parking ratios by ULI standards (which recommends a parking ratio of 4.5 staf 27 per 1000 square feet of GLA for shopping centers over 600,000 sf - 5% lower than the Arcadia Municipal Code), the missing "service area" square footage would have been included, and the required number of stalls would exceed the stalls provided. 28 1,469,539 sf GBA x 95% (GLA/GBA) = 1,396,062 sf GLA x4.5stalls /1,000 sf = 6,282 stalls required, 6204 stalls provided. Bui even this calculation may incorrectly underestimate the ideal parking supply — see alternative methods below. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 specific conditions of approval in planning the parking supply at the mall, the community and Council is also entitled to know the logic and potential weaknesses in the reasoning behind those requirements. One of those conditions, the parking demand analysis offered by Westfield, is also flawed. Both in the 2007 Addendum and in support of its current application, Westfield provides a shared parking demand analysis using ULI/ICSC methods and concedes that for Phase lb with (6,932 stalls) and without (6,849 stalls) the 13,500 square feet increase in restaurant square footage that analysis shows weekend parking demand in December significantly above the actual supply. This finding corroborates the actual experience of many Arcadians during past holiday seasons who have tried unsuccessfully to find parking at the mall. However, there are still more problems with this analysis. Westfield states that in the 2004 count, there were "168 empty parking spaces in the shopping center parking lot during the busiest hour of the year," 8 citing ULI recommendations on what day and hour is typically "busiest," rather than taking actual counts on multiple days and times that would reflect local/Los Angeles Regional shopping habits. No additional counts were taken at all after 2004 for the 2007 Phase lb Addendum. Instead, the analysis was calibrated to peak demand (6,601 stalls) counted during a midday peak hour in the month of December 2004 with Phase lA just open (Phase la opened in October, 2004) but not fully stabilized. The 2004 demand would not account for opening period vacancies, or the Robinson's May store that closed in 2005, or the fact that in December 2006, the 9,700 square foot Cheesecake Factory replaced Market City Cafd and Rose City Diner, both of which failed for lack of traffic. Perhaps all those events, and the background increase in economic activity in the region served by the mall, would precisely offset each other to produce the very same total parking demand as in 2004, but only by taking new counts to compare to the old could the City know this. With the addition of Phase lb GLA, the Arcadia Municipal Code required parking stall count increased by 492 stalls, while Westfield provided only an additional 277 stalls, thereby absorbing all of the holiday "surplus e Letter from Matrix Environmental to Lisa Flores, Senior Planner, City of Arcadia, June 2, 2009. p. 9. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 stalls" which Westfield claims existed in 2004, and leaving a peak period deficit of 47 stalls (492 required -277 new -168 surplus = 47), and making 2007 peak parking conditions that much worse. The ULI is careful to point out that a "weekend" as currently defined extends from Friday evening to Saturday evening, any time during which could be the peak hour for purposes of determining parking demand. In fact, ULI cautions that newer shopping centers with large multi- plex cinemas and substantial non - retail and entertainment uses may have different parking demand characteristics than centers studied in the 1980s when ULI's shared parking research was first conducted, and these uses did not commonly exist in regional shopping centers 9 . Peak periods for parking demand may now occur Friday or Saturday evening around mealtime as people arrive to shop, have dinner and see a show, rather than on one December Saturday at midday, the only period examined by Westfield in its demand study. This begs the question as to whether parking counts taken almost 6 years ago at midday are even relevant for determining peak parking demand and required supply, especially with the proposed. addition of more restaurant use that will further shift the parking demand profile toward the evening hours. Westfield must demonstrate it can comply with the condition of approval of the Phase lb Expansion by providing proof it has sufficient offsite parking to meet holiday peak demand. Westfield has a peak parking demand problem because it has depended upon the next door Santa Anita Park to provide substantial overflow parking, up to 728 stalls (by Westfield's calculation) if the increased restaurant space is approved. However, Santa Anita Park has stated emphatically that it will not guarantee the availability of those spaces now or in the future as evidenced by its May 28 letter 10 . With this new circumstance, how can Westfield claim that the current application will have "negligible" environmental impacts beyond those studied in the Phase lb Addendum, when Westfield assumed it could count on substantial overflow parking next door? And how much more critical will the holiday parking problem be after the completion of Phase 2? 6 Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, "Special Considerations and Adjustments, p. 19 (published by ULI) " Letter from Frank De Marco, Esq., General Counsel and Assistant Secretary, Santa Anita Park, to Mr. Don Penman, City Manager, city of Arcadia, date May 28 2009. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Westfield uses ULI standards to assert that the entire mall should be considered a "shopping center" for the purposes of calculating parking demand, rather than as a mixed -use project, where individual uses would be accounted for with a shared parking analysis. But in doing so, Westfield apparently neglects to include non - retail uses such as Dave & Busters (50,000 square feet — categorized as "all dining, eateries, entertainment, restaurant, specialty" on Westfield's Santa Anita website), and the new Fast Food Court in Phase 1 a (over 12,000 square feet), which if included would make then on retail uses for the whole mall 254,300, or 17.5% of total GLA. Since restaurant square footage was not identified separately prior to 2000, it is unclear what the total square footage of restaurant use is in the mall today — it could be significantly higher than 17.5 %. All we can glean from Table A -2 in the Westfield Expansion EIR is that no incremental restaurant square footage was added to the mall in Phase la", which is clearly false, since most of Phase la was devoted to restaurants. Deducting the square footage of the Robinsons May which closed in 2005 (and would not now contribute to parking demand), and the ratio or non- retail to retail uses increases to 19.7 %, very close to the 20% threshold for a different kind of analysis. ULI recommends a parking ratio of 4.8 stalls /1000sf of GLA (ULI definition) for centers with 20% non - retail uses. That would amount to 7053 stalls, or only 6701 stalls if we grant Westfield a generous 5% service area factor for all GBA. In either case, Westfield is short on parking even without the addition of more restaurant use. Westfield's original parking demand "calibration" is suspect because the Phase 1 a expansion was not fully stabilized when parking counts were taken, and contrary to Westfield's assertions, the sliding scale recommended by ULI is significant when all factors affecting parking demand are properly considered. With a larger proportion of restaurant uses, not only does parkir demand increase due to longer average stays by visitors, but employee parking, generally 20% of all parking 12 , also increases, because restaurants employ far more people (per unit of GLA) than retail stores. " Addendum to the Westfield Santa Anita Expansion Program EIR - Table A -2, "Mall Square Footage as per City of Arcadia Definition ". " ULI, Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Special Considerations and Adjustments, p. 20. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Lastly, the Phase lb Addendum calculation for parking ratios was incorrectly done based on Westfield's claim of 12.2% non - retail uses for the mall including phase lb. A corrected calculation would look as follows: Phase la 94,855 sf/ 1,354,539 sf = 7.0% non - retail (Note — Westfield does not provide the non retail/restaurant square footage for the mall prior to 2000) Phase lb 240,800 sf/1469539 sf = 16.4 % -10% = 6.4 (Note: non - retail uses include cinema, restaurant, food court, and Dave & Busters) 6.4 *.03 stalls /1000 sf x 1,469,539 sf = 282 stall increase in demand over standard ratio 13,500 sf restaurant conversion. 254,300 sf/1,291,039 sf = 19.7% (Note: non - retail uses include all Phase lb uses above plus additional restaurant use proposed to be converted from retail, less closed Robinsons May @ 165,000) 19.7 % -16.4% = 3.3% 099 stalls /1000 sf x 1,469,539 sf = 145 stall increase in demand Based on the above, the total demand increase is 282 + 145 = 427 stalls over the standard ULIIICSC "shopping center" parking ratio for Phase la and Phase lb. This reduces Westfield's claimed "excess parking stalls" based on the Arcadia Municipal Code at the mall from 459 (6204- 5745 = 459) to only 32, a miniscule 0.5% safety margin.. Furthermore, if the ULI parking ratio and sliding scale were consistently used with a more credible definition of GLA to calculate required parking supply, the entire mall would be shown as not over parked, but as significantly under parked. 1,469,539sf GBA * .95 GLA/GBA = 1,396,062 sf GLA *4.5stalls /1000 sf = 6282 stalls.+ 427 = 6709 stalls required. (6204 ) stalls supplied 505 additional stalls required. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The assertion is not that Westfield violated the letter of the Arcadia zoning code, or that Westfield must satisfy even peak holiday parking demand on the property. Rather, it is to point out the Westfield's claim of a comfortable supply of excess parking with Phase lb is unsupported by facts, even when derived in multiple ways, and that the margin of error during normal and peak periods may be very slim, or non - existent. Santa Anita Park already shares a peak parking day with the mall on December 26th, the day after Christmas, which is Opening Day for Thoroughbred horse racing. With the probable addition of race days at Santa Anita from the closure of Hollywood Park, and potential future development on the racetrack property, parking will continue to be a critical issue that must be more carefully examined. To minimize the consequences of an inadequate parking supply, Westfield should provide concrete evidence that peak holiday demand can be satisfied with sufficient offsite parking now. To wait for a "parking management plan" from Westfield sometime in the fall is to allow Westfield to defer the mitigation to a point where no satisfactory option may be_ available. Other mitigations include the requirement for all employees to park offsite or carpool, to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes by offering free transit for all mall employees during the holiday season, providing enhanced bicycle parking and storage facilities, provide a "rideshare incentive program" that gives carpoolers a fixed dollar incentive, and provide a "guaranteed ride home program" to encourage the use of public transit by employees who may have uncertain work shifts. All of these suggestions would not only help alleviate the parking problem, they would also help reduce overall traffic congestion by reducing employee - generated car trips. D. Water Anyone who reads the news knows that the Los Angeles region's water supply is severely strained. The region's water resources are expected to drop about 20% this year, because of the ongoing drought and a 2007 federal court decision that limited the amount of water that agencies can draw from the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta. 14 11 LA Water Rationing Plan Dealt Surprise Setback, Reuters. com (April 8, 2009). Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Arcadia is blessed with its own independent water supply, but the worsening overall water supply condition in Southern California affects Arcadia because a significant percentage of Arcadia's water supply comes from sources outside of the City's boundaries. The Governor's proposed restrictions on the amount of water Arcadia and other communities can receive from providers could have a significant impact on the City's ability to meet demand with it's own sources in the near future. Westfield claims the addition of 13,500 square feet of restaurant square footage in Phase lb will have negligible impacts on Arcadia's water supply resources. Yet, water consumption for restaurants are commonly 6 times that of retail establishments. And Westfield bases it water consumption projections on projected wastewater generation, seemingly now forgetting that wastewater generation rates for restaurants are 10 times retail rates (see CSDLAC District 15 Connection Fee Ordinance). To show its water demand estimates are comfortably conservative, Westfield takes the CSDLAC rate for "shopping center" waste water volumes and multiplies that figure by 125 percent to calculate water demand from Phase 1B. Yet it is not stated in the Addendum why a 25% margin should be considered adequate, particularly with such a large increase in restaurant use now proposed for Phase lb. Further, if 13,500 square feet, (11.5 %) of the Phase lb square footage is converted from retail to restaurant at 6 times the water consumption rate of retail, then a 25% margin of safety is obviously not enough. It only takes simple math to show the total water demand created by the increase restaurant use will, in fact, exceed that of the originally planned retail use by approximately 40 %. Relative Water Demand — Phase lb Use New Retail New Restaurant Prior Retail Prior Restaurant Square Footage 93,500 23,500 107,000 10,000 Rate 1 6 1 6 Total Units/Use 93,500 141,000 107,000 60,000 Total Units 234,500 167,000 Increase 40% _ (234,500 — 167,000)x100/167,000 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 22 Westfield may argue that all this will create no new impacts over the "envelope" analyzed in the Phase lb Addendum and the 2000 EIR, in spite of worsening drought conditions and restricted water supplies in the region. But at a minimum Westfield should multiply the wastewater generation rate by 140 percent (not 125 percent) to calculate incremental water demand for the added restaurant use, and then show that Arcadia can accommodate that additional demand. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A more credible source for water consumption rates is a study prepared by the Pacific Institute which uses employees performing various food service activities, and restroom usage, during a typical day as the basis for determining water consumption 15 . For restaurants, the study converts those water intensive activities to "meals served per day," resulting in an estimated range of consumption rates between 12.9 gal/meal and 9.9 gal/ meal. Using that study's assumptions for meals served per day and using the Uniform Building Code to estimate restaurant dining room occupancy, 13,500 square feet of additional restaurant square footage would equate to 2700 meals per day on average, or approximately 9.2 million additional gallons of water per year versus only 1.6 million gallons per year using Westfield's "shopping center" rate, a nearly 600% difference in calculated water usage. Furthermore, using the correct baseline for the project (that is, 13,500 square feet of vacant space converted to restaurant use), the increased water consumption for all of Phase lb will be approximately 17.63 million gallons per year 17 versus 14.26 million gallons per year calculated by Westfield' 8 , 25% more than estimated by Westfield, even including the 25% "safety" factor. " Waste Not Want Not The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California Gleick, Haasz, Henges- Jenks,Srinivasan, Wolff, Koa Cushing, Mann, November, 2003 Published by the Pacific Institute with funding the California Department of Water Resources 16 Typical restaurants are 60% dining room area and 40% kitchen, 13,500 x 60 %= 8100 sf of total dining room. For dining rooms, the UBC uses 15 sf/occupant = 540 seats at 5 turns /seat/day or 2700 meals. 2700 meals at 11.4gal/meal (avg of 12.9 and 9.9 rates) = 30,780 gal/day x 300 days /year = 9,234, 000 gal/year. 17 Using the Pacific Institute Study, and retail employee estimates provided by Westfield (2 employees /1000 sf of GLA), total water consumption is estimated at 18M GPY for 23,500 sf of restaurant and 8.53M GPY for 93,500 sf of retail, or 17.63M GPY assuming a 300 day year of operations. 18 Westfield uses 325 gpd/1000 sf of GLA for wastewater and increases the amount by 25% to derive water demand. 117,000 sf of GLA x 325gpd/1000 sf GLA x 300 days /yr x 125% = 14.26 million gallons per year. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The 2000 EIR does little or no quantitative analysis of water demand resulting from the anticipated 690,000 gross square foot phased expansion of the mall. Rather, it relies on 1999 correspondence from then General Services Manger for Arcadia that "the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the City's ability to provide quality water service to the project and the community. " This statement is not accompanied by any analysis, only by the assurance that "The City's Water Master Plan includes a new storage reservoir to be constructed in the next two to three years ". Is the existence of a reservoir dispositive without water reserves to fill it? Later the 2007 EIR Addendum simply pours the additional water demand from subsequent expansions on top of the 2000 EIR, whose own conclusions are weakly. justified. This is exactly the CEQA "house of cards" that can arise when stale and outdated environmental analysis is allowed to support new claims almost a decade later. The Pacific Institute study is one of many resources for suggestions on how to reduce water consumption in commercial enterprise, including waterless toilets, low flow nozzles on faucets, high efficiency dishwashers and many other relatively new technologies. Via lease agreements, Westfield could require new restaurant tenants to utilize best available technology to reduce overall water consumption significantly, and thereby relieve some of the burden from one of Arcadia's most important and limited natural resources. E. Wastewater In a retail establishment, what comes out of the tap or toilet is generally all that goes down the drain. In a restaurant, tap water is combined with significant food waste which significantly increases total wastewater volume. In addition, restaurant operations have combined additional water sources and uses when compared to retail uses. The CSDLAC District 15 factor used by Westfield for "shopping center" waste water volume is 325 gallons per day ( "GPD ") /1000 square feet of GLA. Looking at the uses individually, the rates are 100 GPD /1000 square feet for retail stores, and 1000 GPD /1000 square feet for restaurants ( CSDLAC). In other words, restaurants can generate up to 10 times the wastewater of retail establishments, (as stated earlier). Understanding 19 2000 EIR, p.4 -140 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 this, it takes simple arithmetic using the water consumption method employed by Westfield to show the total wastewater volume flowing from the new restaurant use will exceed by approximately 60% the wastewater generated by the retain use originally planned for that same square footage. Relative Wastewater Volume, Phase lb Use New Retail New Restaurant Prior Retail Prior Restaurant Square Footage 93,500 23,500 107,000 10,000 Rate (Units) 1 10 1 10 Total Units/Use 93500 235000 107,000 100,000 Total Units 328,500 __ J 207,000 Increase 59% = (328,000 — 207,000)x100/207,000 By using a rate for wastewater generated based on a "shopping center" water consumption, Westfield obscures the fact that, once in operation, restaurants will comprise a relatively large proportion of the Phase lb expansion, and that the resultant 60% increase in wastewater generation (over retail uses) may create a significant impact. While the CSDLAC rate for "shopping center" wastewater volume at 325gpd provides a total volume estimate consistent with (in fact higher than) CSDLAC individual use rates, that figure should not be applied where restaurant and non - retail uses comprise over 20% of the GLA. In fact, the resulting wastewater volumes are inconsistent with water demand volumes calculated above. This is where Westfield's use of a 25% factor to convert wastewater demand to water demand causes more problems, because it implies that only 80% of the water demand from retail and non - retail uses in Phase lb ever makes it to the sewer. In fact, wastewater volume should be virtually equal to water volume, and where there are many restaurant uses, it can be even greater. Using the water generation rates from the Pacific Institute Study, wastewater volume equal to water demand volume would yield 58,766 gpd of wastewater for Phase lb (not 33,375 gpd or 17,250 gpd claimed by Westfield), a 76% increase over Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 25 1 Westfield's estimates. A Metcalf and Eddy study conducted for the Shops at Santa Anita in 2006 2 used a 90% generation factor to convert water demand to wastewater volume for commercial /retail 3 uses 20 . That is, they assumed that 90% of the water used went down the drain. That method would 4 still yield 52,889 gpd, a 58% increase over Westfield's figures. Given the ongoing water crisis, it 5 is inconceivable that Arcadia would want a less rigorous analysis of water and wastewater impacts 6 for one project than for another. Only a proper analysis required by CEQA would justify ' Westfield's claim of no significant impact. 8 In addition to paying applicable sewer connection fees prior to issuance of permits, 9 Westfield should obtain a statement from CSDLAC confirming that sufficient excess capacity 10 exists in the sewer system and treatment facilities to handle the additional demand. 11 F. Solid Waste 12 Westfield uses CIWMB rates to calculate solid waste generation for the Project. The use of 13 one waste generation rate or another does not address the real problem of solid waste and the 14 limited availability of landfill space in the Los Angeles region. Furthermore, Westfield's waste 15 generation rate source, CIWMB, does not officially endorse the rates used to calculate solid waste 16 generation from shopping center, commercial or restaurant sources. In fact CIWMB presents a 17 wide range of waste generation factors and metrics, from 2.5lbs /1000sf/day to .096lbs /sf /day to 18 1 4.75lbs/employee/day for commercial uses (1991 -1992) , and individual city planning departments 19 are encouraged to determine waste generation rates based on specific conditions. 20 21 CIWMB Solid Waste Generation Rates: 22 o .005lbs /sf/day to 1 lb per seat/day to 17 lbs per employee per day for fast food 23 restaurants. (1991 -1997) o 2.5 lbs /100sf /day for shopping centers (1997) 24 o 3.2 lbs /100sf /day for department stores (1997) 25 26 Another, more accurate way to look at solid waste impacts is by looking at disposal rates rather 27 than generation rates. Disposal rates account for recycling and reuse of material, because they 28 include only those waste items actually taken to landfills. Disposal rates are derived from 20 The Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan EIR, 2007, Table 4.14 -12, p. 4.14 -35 Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employee counts, which is a better metric for shopping centers, restaurants and similar service- oriented uses because employees, not construction debris, assembly lines or manufacturing capacity generates the solid waste. Waste disposal data dates from a CIWMB study completed in 1999. Restaurants dispose of 3.1 tons of waste per employee per year, and general merchandise retail stores generate .03 tons /employee /year. With a more realistic employee estimates for restaurant and retail uses than Westfield provides, total waste generation for Phase lb including the additional restaurant use would be 772 tons of solid waste /year vs only 525 tons of solid waste for Phase lb calculated by Westfield, an almost 32% lower figure. Furthermore, if the proper baseline for environmental study is used (that is, converting 13,500 sf of vacant space to restaurant use), the increase in solid waste would be a full 772 tons /year for Phase lb, or 60% more than Westfield's calculation using the "shopping center" rate of 2.5 lbs /sf/day Westfield has a recycling program in operation at the mall but Westfield is not obligated to achieve specific results nor is the effectiveness of its program systematically verified by any City agency. An appropriate mitigation for solid waste impact would be to require a solid waste management and recycling plan with specific target diversion rates, and include onsite composting of landscape "green waste" and food waste from restaurants and entertainment uses. The plan would be implemented thru individual tenant leases. A reasonable solid waste diversion rate target of 53% can be easily achieved for malls like Westfield Santa Anita, and Westfield should be required to show evidence of compliance on at least an annual basis. It is worth noting that Westfield has achieved even better results (up to 65% diversion) at its mall in Mission Valley outside of San Diego California, and there is no reason why it cannot achieve similar results in Arcadia. Styrofoam, or expanded polystyrene (EPS) is often overlooked as a solid waste issue because waste is measure by weight and EPS can take up valuable landfill space, even though it is " At 10 full time employees/ 1 000sf of restaurant area, 23,500/1000 x 10 = 270 restaurant employees — 27 retail employees = 243 full time restaurant employees x 3.1 tons /employee = 753 tons + 93,500 sf retail x 2employees /1000sf = 187 retail employees x.03 tons/employee = 5.61 tons. 753 + 5.6 = 758.6 tons. u Excluding vacant space, Phase lb includes 93,500 sf retail +10,000 sf restaurant = 103,500sf x 2.5lbs /100sf/day x365 days 944,4381bs = 472 tons /year 758.6- 472/472 x 100 = 60% increase in solid waste disposal. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 very light weight. It is commonly used for takeout food packaging at restaurants, as well as for shipping protection of breakable items like furniture and glassware. EPS in restaurants is especially problematic, because once it leaves the premises, it becomes impossible to control where it enters the waste stream. Much of it becomes the objectionable litter we see on the roadside. EPS takes up to a hundred years to fully degrade, and in the process breaks down into tiny pellets that can find their way to lakes and oceans, blocking out sunlight and disrupting ecosystems 23 The low availability of EPS recycling facilities in the past has limited recycling efforts. Instead, communities like Malibu, Santa Monica, Calabasas, Huntington Beach, Laguna Hills, San Juan Capistrano, Aliso Viejo, and San Clemente, among other local communities, have instituted various Styrofoam bans. As it happens, there is now a Styrofoam recycling center nearby in Pomona, CA (Mission Recycling 1341 E. Mission Blvd. Pomona, CA 91766) that accepts expanded polystyrene. Using tenant lease provisions, Westfield should require both restaurant and retail tenants to collect and recycle Styrofoam waste to minimize its impacts on limited landfill space, and it should adopt a ban on Styrofoam use for restaurants and other food service establishments. G. Global Warming Water scarcity in the Los Angeles area is a function of growth, micro climate and broader climatic changes induced by the effects of global warming. Global warming was not fully understood or generally considered to cause significant environmental impacts when the Westfield Expansion Program EIR was certified in 2000. Even in 2007, when the Phase lb Addendum was approved, there was no broad consensus as to the origins and scale of the GHG problem. The recently published Global Climate Change Impacts in the US (United States Global Change Research Program, June 16, 2009) states that "warming of the climate is unequivocal' and that "The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human- induced emissions of heat - trapping gases ". While Federal and State Governments work toward establishing impact thresholds for greenhouse gases, GHG emissions should be at least be quantified and potential impacts examined in the environmental analysis required for every project under CEQA, even if " Marine Debris, Impacts in the Gulf of Mexico, NOAA Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office, Protected Resources Division, December 2006. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the impacts are deemed insignificant or too small to measure. The addition of 23,000 sf of restaurant use to the Westfield Phase lb expansion is no exception. H. Land Use Westfield fails to explain how replacing 13,500 square feet of retail with restaurant and patio will be accomplished. Retail stores typically do not have outdoor patios, so how much new patio is now proposed? What was the patio area assumed previously in the 10,000 square feet of permitted restaurant use? With new interior restaurant and exterior patio exactly replacing 13,500 square feet of interior retail, will some interior retail area equivalent to the new outdoor restaurant patio area be abandoned and not used? The numbers do not add up, frustrating precise analysis. I. Noise The closest noise sensitive uses are 300 ft away. Neighbors could be affected by noise from new restaurants and outdoor patio uses, especially restaurants with a full liquor license operating on the additional patios that Westfield proposes. Yet Westfield wants an exemption without examining this nuisance impact at all. J. Population Westfield claims that "[a]dding up to another 13,500 square feet of restaurant uses in lieu of 13 500 square feet of retail uses would not change the employment calculations, which anticipated 150 full time and 150 part time employees." A quick survey of restaurants comparable to those proposed shows they employ substantially more people than retail establishments. A typical 5,500 -6,500 square foot family style restaurant such as Ruby Tuesday, TGI Friday, or Wood Ranch employs about 100 people, of which 20 -25% is management or full time employees. That equates to about 10 full -time employees per 1,000 square feet of restaurant, or about 110 additional full time employees for the additional 13,500 square feet of proposed restaurant space alone (135 restaurant employee minus 27 retail employees), if we assume the existing space is leased to retail uses (which it is not — it is currently vacant). Using the correct baseline for the additional restaurant use (that is, vacant space converted to restaurant use), the increase in employment is 135 full time employees, or 11.5% of all new employees projected by Westfield (in its Phase lb EIR Addendum) for the entire projected 690,000 gsf of expansion. For the Phase lb expansion alone, Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the total employees count would be 416. Whether this has an impact on the local population, housing and other public services, and whether these additional employees will "live in close proximity to the site" should be examined in more detail to determine if there are implications for traffic as well. K. Traffic The 2000 Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR studied 21 intersections and found three significant impacts for which it adopted mitigations. That EIR contemplated 690,000 gsf (GBA) of expansion between the year 2000 and the year 2002. In fact, by the year 2005, only Phase 1 a (255,943 sf) of the total 690,000 gsf expansion program had been completed, so it is little wonder that actual traffic conditions in 2005 were less severe than predicted for the assumed full buildout year of 2002. Even so, excluding the roughly 440,000 sf of as yet un -built GBA, traffic conditions in 2005 had actually gotten worse than predicted at four of the 21 intersections studied in 2000. B, 2005, with Phase la mostly open and the majority (but not all) of the required mitigations complete, Westfield's figures projected that by 2008, 22 of the 23 intersections studied would deteriorate further due to cumulative projects and background growth, without adding a single additional square foot to the mall. The statement that "The results of Table 2 show that the traffic levels through the study intersections today are within the levels predicted by the certified EIR" 21 is simply false — the 2000 EIR assumed Westfield would have completed its entire 690,000 gsf expansion program, when in fact it had only completed a third of it. This suggests that rather than proving the 2000 EIR "envelope" for traffic impacts was conservative, in fact Westfield's estimates were way off the mark. Traffic in Arcadia exceeded the projections made by Westfield in 2000 for the entire 690,000 gsf expansion program by the year 2008, with only Phase la complete. And Arcadia, without the economic benefit of the completed mall expansion, was left with virtually all the negative traffic consequences. 24 By Westfield's calculation, it would add only 600,000 sf of GLA (taking the maximum 15 %discount for "service areas ". The 2000 ERI is happy to use GLA in determining traffic impacts, whereas the 2007 EIR Addendum, perhaps chasten by the presence of a potential competitor, used GBA figures in calculating traffic impacts. zs Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown EIR, Traffic and Parking Analysis, p. 16. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There are other problems. Westfield based its 2007 Addendum traffic study and new baseline conditions on counts taken in November and December, 2004 — all non -race days at Santa Anita Park. Westfield claims the holiday shopping season essentially duplicates the additional traffic from Santa Anita Park patrons during the months of January through April (a claim unsupported by any actual analysis in the study). In fact, counts taken by Caruso an Santa Anita Park in April, 2006 for its' traffic study show 12 of the 23 study intersections significantly higher than Westfield's non -race day counts a year earlier 27 — much higher than would be explained simply by background growth. Had the 2000 estimated been more accurate (that is, had it accurately projected the timing of the project, background growth and a realistic set of cumulative projects), Westfield could have had nine significant impacts to mitigate in "Phase 1," not three. The threshold standard for traffic impacts used by Arcadia (and other jurisdictions) can allow sophisticated parties like Westfield to avoid mitigations by adopting an incremental approach. In the 2000 EIR, the full expansion of Westfield Mall was projected to have no significant impact at three intersections with the I -210, at Huntington Drive, and Santa Anita Avenue (east and westbound). The 2015 cumulative analysis with full build -out of the Westfield mall still showed no significant impact at these intersections. Again in the 2007 Addendum, with new traffic count baselines established, no there is no significant impact at these three intersections. However, had Westfield initially compared the 2002 base figures with the 2008 cumulative projections with full project buildout, all three intersections would have shown a significant impact. Furthermore, had Westfield used Santa Anita Park race -day counts in establishing its 2005 baseline, the analysis would clearly have predicted more and more severe impacts. This concept is important to the current issue of converting retail space to restaurant space at The Promenade. The small resulting increase in trip generation may be insufficient to cross the impact threshold established in the analysis, but this increment, combined with other future similar increments, can collectively contribute to ever more congested streets and roadways in Arcadia — with no corresponding help from the Mall. Table 9, in Westfield's EIR Addendum perfectly 26 Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown EIR, Traffic and Parking Analysis, p. 7. 27 The Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, October, 2006, p. 22. 28 Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown EIR, Traffic and Parking Analysis, Table 9. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 31 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 illustrates this. From the completion of Westfield's Phase 1 a and its required mitigations, through the projected completion of Phase 2 in the year 2015 (485,000 sf), Westfield concludes that not a single one of the 23 study intersections will experience a significant impact. It is also worth noting that the trusty traffic study "envelope," on which Westfield is asking Arcadia to rely for its request to expand restaurant uses at the Mall, included no morning peak hour analysis, no Saturday morning or afternoon peak hour analysis, no racetrack peak hour analysis (race track peak traffic hours differ from the mall) and included a meager 23 study intersections, only two more than it studied in the 2000 EIR. By contrast, the 2006 Caruso traffic study for its project next door examined 42 intersections including AM, PM and Saturday peak periods and later, in deference to Arcadia's general practice of extending the geographic study area boundaries until project related traffic impacts fall below the .02 threshold 29 , expanded the study area to include 63 intersections in and around the City of Arcadia, including AM, PM and Saturday peak periods - two vastly different standards of care for environmental analysis. With no environmental review, Westfield will be adding trips to the streets of this City without paying proportionately into the City's Transportation Impact Fee Program. This is unfair both to the City and to other businesses, who have a right to be treated equally. 5. EVEN IF WESTFIELD OTHERWISE QUALIFIED FOR AN EXEMPTION (WHICH IT DOES NOT) THE REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT WESTFIELD'S PROJECT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT REMOVES THE EXEMPTION Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations § 15300.2(c) provides: A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. On the one hand, the standard for negating an exemption is higher (a "reasonable possibility" of a "significant effect ") than for preventing this one in the first place (more than a "negligible" change in use, regardless of the effect). On the other hand, the illegitimate advantage that Westfield grabbed for (and we indulged for illustrative purposes) in comparing its proposal to its prior, outdated and inadequate projections of the effects of its nonexistent use, disappears. ze The Shops at Santa Anita Specific Plan Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, October, 2006, p. 4. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Westfield is now left to argue that building 13,500 square feet of restaurant use in empty space lacks a "reasonable possibility" of significant effects on the environment. In other words, Westfield must now defend the position that if some other party simply asked for removal of a prohibition on restaurant uses on some other vacant property, it could defend an exemption based on the lack of a reasonable possibility of a significant effect. That is an argument Westfield, cannot win. A few examples are enough to make the point. The analysis for each area of concern is provided above. a. Water Using the correct baseline for the project (13,500 square feet of vacant space converted to restaurant use), the increased water consumption for all of Phase lb will be approximately 17.63 million gallons per year 11 versus 14.26 million gallons per year calculated by Westfield ' 25% more than Westfield estimated, even including the 25% "safety" factor. b. Wastewater Using the correct baseline for the Project (that is, converting 13,500 square feet of vacant space to restaurant use), the incremental increase in wastewater generation for Phase lb resulting from adding 13,500 square feet of restaurant use is actually closer to 135% more than Westfield's estimates. c. Solid Waste If the proper baseline for environmental study is used (that is, converting 13,500 square feet of vacant space to restaurant use), the increase in solid waste would be a full 772 tons /year for Phase lb, or 60% more than Westfield's calculation using the "shopping center" rate of 2.5 lbs /sf /day d. Population Using the correct baseline for the additional restaurant use (that is, 13,500 square feet of vacant space converted to restaurant use), the increase in employment is 135 full time employees, 32% more than Westfield's estimates for Phase lb, and 11.5% of all new employees projected by Westfield (in its Phase lb Addendum) for entire projected 690,000 gsf of expansion. Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Westfield, of course, dearly wants to rely on the nonexistent retail use as its baseline, in order to minimize the new impacts of this new project. And it may have that advantage — when it prepares the initial study it is required to have. Westfield's consultants argued to the Counsel that it may avoid the effect of these impacts because under the cited Guideline, even if there is a reasonable possibility that the addition of restaurant use will have a significant effect on the environment, this must be "due to unusual circumstances," and no such circumstances appear here. We emphasize at the outset that what we are dealing with here is a way to lose an exemption once obtained, and Westfield comes nowhere near that status. That said, we note that the Guidelines do not define "unusual circumstances." We note cases which are easily distinguishable from this case, such as Fairbank v. City of Mill Valley, 75 Cal.App.4th 1243 (1999) which held that minor changes in traffic and parking patterns caused by a small commercial project were not "unusual circumstances" giving rise to the possibility of significant effects. That case illustrates, if anything, why Westfield's argument is fallacious. In context, the meaning of "unusual circumstances" is easy enough to grasp, and presents no additional barrier to Westfield losing its exemption, if it had one in the first place. As explained in Section B above, a "categorical exemption" is one of "a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment and which shall be exempt from" the requirements of CEQA." (Cal. Public Resources Code § 21084.) "In adopting the guidelines, the Secretary of the Resources Agency shall make a finding that the listed classes of projects referred to in this section do not have a significant effect on the environment." (Title 14, Cal. Code of Regulations § 21084(a).) In other words, these categories of exemptions are supposed to normally have no significant effect on the environment. So if it turns out that an exempt project nonetheless has such a significant effect, it must necessarily be because of "unusual circumstances." In this case, what is unusual about the circumstances is not hard to find. An exemption is sought here contemplating a negligible or no expansion of use is being applied to placing 13,500 square feet of restaurant use in currently vacant space. Its very scale and the magnitude of its Presentation of Santa Anita Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 impacts make it unusual, even if Westfield could somehow get away with its argument that hiding this change inside an even more gargantuan project qualifies for the exemption. 6. THE CITY COUNSEL SHOULD DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE COMMUNITY AND CALL FOR PREPARATION OF AN INITIAL STUDY Considering the effort that Westfield has put into defending its exemption, and all the data and analysis it throws at the proposition that its expansion project will not have even a negligible effect on parking, waste and sewage generation, traffic, noise, etc., Westfield still resists presenting its data in an Initial Study. This speaks louder than any argument why an Initial Study should be prepared. If Westfield bypasses any possibility of evaluation and mitigation and installs its project, the community will live with the results for a long time. And the process will assuredly not be faster as Westfield, ever pugnacious and pushy, opts for more litigation rather than doing what the law calls for and what is best for the community. Unlike Westfield, we are not seeking to push a competitor out of town. And an unsuccessful Westfield Mall is the last thing that would be in the interests of our interests. But we believe that all must play by the same rules, and for Westfield to piously invoke CEQA when it is fending off a potential competitor, and then hypocritically flout the same law when the law is applied to itself is unacceptable. The business community needs to stand up to a corporate bully and we are doing so here. We invite the City to join us. When Westfield returns with an initial study and prepares a MND, we will accept a legitimate analysis showing that the project, as mitigated, will not have a significant adverse environmental impact. But Westfield's attempt to evade that analysis is unacceptable as a matter of law, and is a disservice to this community, which would have to live with those impacts far into the future. Dated: July 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, Lo Joel S. Moskowitz V Attorney for Santa Anita Associates LLC Presentation of Santa Anitz Associates, LLC on Inapplicability of CEQA Exemption - 35 CEGA Process Flow Chart Pubic kgialrrminer t'iat 1114 t�c�r�]' It0'1JI4{rei" tarrerteeera 0 p1AjW wweee�eei �� ptoJlrCl PPO�eCti6P11rIkS4r1�1 eaaaa� Pubib: Agency No pmolble SWIFIoant 90681 d4tarnatrAa It 1184 o►aJe+x la esempt 8010" e±w"�W Omqwiew 1idn au Not SOMPt Public apencY 408188146 Frcloct U dOOMWw ilth4ra r a POSAM ty OW an PM184 rrry have a WUnWioarl abso unwrrdccranwU F 6lpi ii141 6rtool Dwwmiiobon rf Ned agency vAwBe NMICO of Exnnpllott h mvw roller aura Than oa6 pubiin 8964wy is now b4f114d r (avolVBd LEAD Ad11MOT Lead Wnaj property rolliad *U* Laed nowuv deeb6ontop0OPara EA or Negative DealWOOM EIR iiegedve OacleratIm Lwd.kpn y giver pubU4 rnntce of 8wilabiilto d AtegWyt Declaration Public Ravlev Period Corwid�raaanand app al Wept De4Nraticn by decMen- meifng batty EXHIBIT A Distinction Between Categorical Exemption and Negative Declaration From "CEQA Process Flow Chart," California Resources Agency, http: / /ceres.ca.gov /cega /flowchart /index.htmi Attachment No. 3 , W OO liter \�. June 2, 2009 STAFF'REDPORT Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director-I'U*,*' Jim Kasama, Community Development Administratoy�� By: Lisa L. Flores, Senior Planner `T SUBJECT: Amendment to Architectural Desian Review No. ADR 2005 -026 and City Council Resolution No 6562 for Westfield Santa Anita Mall Phase lb expansion to increase the restaurant use from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet at 400 South Baldwin Avenue. Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 6676 SUMMARY On March 12, 2009, the City received a request from Westfield Corporation, Inc. to amend Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 for the approval of Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 for the Phase 1 b (The Promenade) expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita mall. The requested amendment proposes to increase the amount of restaurant space in the Phase lb expansion from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet and reduce by an equal 13,500 square feet the amount of retail space from 90,800 square feet to 77,300 square feet. The overall 100,800 square feet of the Phase 1 b expansion approved by the City Council will not change. On May 12, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment, and found the proposed amendment acceptable. There was no opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted 5 -0 recommending approval of the requested amendment to Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562. BACKGROUND In 2007, the City Council approved the Phase lb expansion of the Westfield Santa Anita mall for the addition of 100,800 square feet, which was comprised of 90,800 square feet of retail space and 10,000 square feet of restaurant space. Phase 1 b is now known as The Promenade and is at the southwest quadrant of the mall to the south of Nordstrom and west of Macy's. According to Westfield, the primary objective of Phase lb is to create a community and pedestrian oriented shopping area by expanding the overall specialty retail aspects of the shopping center. Specifically, the Phase lb expansion consists of five retail buildings situated at an open -air, landscaped, promenade, and a two -level parking structure underneath the retail buildings. One parking level is at grade and the second level is entirely subterranean. The new parking structure provides 783 parking spaces, and there is a total on -site .parking supply of 6,204 spaces. Additionally, a semi - circular entry plaza is provided immediately to the west of Phase lb to facilitate the drop -off and pick -up of shopping center patrons. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The Phase lb expansion was approved with a condition that limited restaurant uses to a total of 10,000 square feet. This condition was based on Westfield's proposed mix of commercial uses. Due to the current economic climate, Westfield is requesting an amendment to Phase lb to increase the maximum restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet, which is to include outdoor dining. To limit any potential impacts of this amendment, Westfield is proposing to reduce the amount of retail space in Phase 1 b from 90,800 square feet to 77,300 square feet. Therefore, the overall 100,800 square -foot total of Phase 1 b will not change. Westfield is currently considering restaurant proposals from Panera Bread, Ruby Tuesday, and Manna BBQ that total 17,961 square feet. To determine whether, or not, the requested amendment would have any traffic or parking impacts, staff requested a reassessment of the traffic and parking impacts of Phase 1b. Westfield retained the services of Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, which provided the attached report on the requested amendment of Phase 1 b. Parking Impacts The Westfield Santa Anita mall, including Phase 1 b, has an approved on -site parking supply of 6,204 spaces based on a ratio of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. When Phase 1 b was approved, the parking assessment conducted at that time determined that the Westfield Santa Anita mall needed a total on -site parking supply of 5,882 spaces. Therefore, with the new Phase 1 b parking structure, the Westfield Santa Anita mall has a total on -site parking surplus of 322 spaces. Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 Westfield Phase lb June 2, 2009 — Page 2 It should be noted that the parking assessment analyzed parking demand, which is different from the parking requirement of 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The parking demand assessment analyzed how much parking would be needed at particular times, and determined that the only times when parking demand would exceed the on -site supply of 6,204 parking spaces was on weekends in December. This excess demand, however, would be accommodated by Westfield's off -site employee parking plan for the holiday season, which is a required mitigation measure of the Westfield expansion Final Environmental Impact Report. The reassessment of the parking impacts for the requested amendment to Phase lb came to the same conclusion. The Development Services Department agrees with Westfield that the proposed amendment to increase the amount of restaurant space in the Phase 1 b expansion, which includes outdoor dining, will enhance the activities at the expansion as well as for the entire mall by creating a more inviting shopping and dining atmosphere. Staff also determined that the proposed amendment will not change the overall total square- footage of Phase 1 b and it will essentially not result in any new impacts. CODE REQUIREMENTS All City code requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, parking and"site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Community Development Administrator, Fire Marshal, Development Services Director, and Public Works Services Director. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines as noted on the attached Notice of Exemption. FISCAL IMPACT None CONDITION OF APPROVAL Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6562 be revised to read as follows: Restaurant uses within Phase 1 b shall be limited to a maximum of 23,500 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which is to include the outdoor dining. Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 Westfield Phase 1 b June 2, 2009 — Page 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approves Resolution No. 6676 amending Architectural Design Review (ADR 2005 -026) and Condition No. 9 of City Council Resolution No. 6652 to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet, which includes outdoor dining at the Westfield Santa Anita mall located at 400 S. Baldwin Avenue. Approved: _ — D , ►n L Don Penman, City Manager Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution No. 6676 2. City Council Resolution No. 6562 3. CEQA Document – Notice of Exemption 4. Request from Westfield dated March 23, 2009 5. Traffic and Parking Report dated March 4, 2009 Amendment to ADR 2005 -026 & Resolution No. 6562 Westfield Phase lb June 2, 2009 – Page 4 Attachment No. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 6676 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6562 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW NO. ADR 2005 -026) BY AMENDING CONDITION NO. 9 AND ADDING NEW CONDITION NOS. 2 AND 34 RELATING TO THE EXPANSION OF WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — SANTA ANITA (PHASE lb) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE WHEREAS, in 2005 Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted plans for Architectural Design Review ( "ADR 2005- 026 ") for approximately 100,800 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) of retail shops, including 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses, and the development of additional parking at the Westfield Santa Anita Mall (the "Mall "), more commonly known as "Phase lb "; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 6562 conditionally approving ADR 2005 -026 for the expansion of the Mall, more commonly known as "Phase lb ", subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services Department; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") for the expansion of up to 600,000 square feet to the Westfield Santa Anita Mall, and the EIR was certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000; MIns 1 WHEREAS, in January 2007, an EIR Addendum (the "EIR Addendum ") was prepared for Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026, and the City Council independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were prepared pursuant to the requirements of CEQA and approved City Council Resolution Nos. 6561 and 6562; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2009, the City received a request from Westfield Corporation to amend Condition No. 9 (the "Amendment ") of Resolution No. 6562 (ADR 2005 -026) of the Phase lb approval, to increase the approved restaurant space of 10,000 square feet to up to 23,500 square feet; the Amendment includes outdoor dining and could reduce the retail use from 90,800 square feet to 77,300 square feet (if all of the additional 13,500 square feet were -used for restaurant space), but the overall 100,800 square feet of Phase lb previously approved by the City Council would not change; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, a duly noticed public hearing concerning the Amendment was held before the Planning Commission on said matter at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend to the City Council approval of the Amendment and a Categorical Exemption under CEQA; and WHEREAS, on June 2, 2009, the City Council conducted a noticed public OA hearing at which time all interested parties were given full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, the City Council voted 5 -0 to continue the public hearing to July 7, 2009 and then on July 7, 2009 voted 5 -0 to continue the public hearing further to July 21, 2009 at the request of the Applicant and then completed the public hearing on July 21, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Amendment to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to up to 23,500 square feet, which includes outdoor dining, will enhance the activities in Phase lb, as well as in the entire Mall, by creating a more inviting shopping and dining atmosphere. The Amendment will not change the overall total square footage of Phase lb, and will not result in any new impacts under CEQA. Because the EIR Addendum analyzed the full 100,800 square foot Phase lb area, the minor change embodied in the Amendment will not have any new substantial impacts that were not previously analyzed in the EIR Addendum and qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under CEQA as it involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use (regional shopping center). SECTION 2. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended by amending Condition No. 9 to read as follows: 3 CONDITION NO.9 Restaurant uses within Phase lb shall be limited to a maximum of 23,500 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) which includes any outdoor dining. SECTION 3. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is amended by deleting Condition No. 2 and by substituting therefor a new Condition No. 2 to read as follows: CONDITION NO.2 Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any new restaurant use within Phase lb which causes square footage of all restaurant uses in Phase lb to exceed, in the aggregate, 10,000 square feet of GLA, evidence deemed satisfactory by the City's Development Services Director or designee, in his/her reasonable discretion, of completion of the mitigation measure established for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) shall be provided to the City's Development Services Director. SECTION 4. Section 3 of Resolution No. 6562 is hereby amended by adding a new Condition No. 34 to read as follows: 4 CONDITION NO. 34 The applicant (Westfield) shall submit to the City's Development Services Director an off -site parking management plan by October 15 each year, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter, commencing October 15, 2009, to address parking demand during late November through early January holiday period peak hours, as defined below. The parking management plan shall include the following: 1. The number of off -site parking spaces required for the Westfield Santa Anita Mall to address parking demand during Mall holiday period peak hours, which peak hours ( "Peak Hours ") are defined herein to include the Friday after Thanksgiving, the day following Christmas, the day following New Year's Day and every weekend (Saturday and Sunday) from the Friday after Thanksgiving up to and including the day following New Year's Day (the period from the Friday after Thanksgiving through the day following New Year's Day is herein referred to as the "Holiday Period"), based on the amount of space within the Mall. 2. The location of the required number of parking spaces to meet parking demand for the Peak Hours. 3. Copies of fully executed agreements with the owners or tenants of properties on which off -site parking spaces are provided for the Peak Hours (which may be redacted to exclude economic terms between Westfield and said owners or tenants). 4. A transportation plan identifying the shuttle operator, and the schedule and hours of shuttle operation and shuttle stops for those off -site parking spaces located beyond reasonable walking distance to the Mall for the Peak Hours. 5 5. The parking management plan shall be in such form and shall have such content so as to be approved in writing by the City's Development Services Director or designee, in his/her reasonable discretion, on or before November 15 each year, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter. For each day past November 15, or if it falls on a weekend, the first business day thereafter, that the City's Development Services Director determines, in his/her reasonable discretion, that he /she cannot approve the parking management plan, or any revised plan, submitted by the applicant (Westfield), Westfield shall pay to the City for the Holiday Period commencing during 2009, one thousand dollars ($1,000) to compensate the City for any and all damages and consequences incurred by the City due to increased traffic and lack of adequate off -site parking during the Holiday Period, which the applicant (Westfield) and the City agree would otherwise be difficult to quantify. The daily sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) shall be increased by four percent (4 %) each year over the prior year's daily sum, commencing for the Holiday Period beginning the Friday following Thanksgiving in 2010. The City shall use good faith in determining the adequacy of the plan. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney 51 Attachment No. 5 RESOLUTION NO. 6562 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ADR 2005 -026 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN — SANTA ANNTA (PHASE 1 b) AT 400 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE. WHEREAS, in 2005 Westfield Corporation, Inc. submitted plans for architectural design review ( "ADR 2005 - 026 ") for an approximately 100,800 square foot retail expansion and a subterranean two -story parking structure to accommodate 783 vehicles at the Westfield Shoppingtown -Santa Anita, more commonly known as "Phase 1 b "; and WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007 the Planning Commission reviewed ADR 2005 -026 and the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council approval of the architectural design therein, subject to the conditions recommended by the Development Services Department. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the staff report is true and correct. 6562 SECTION 2. The City Council finds: 1. That the location, configuration and architectural design and the proposed materials and colors of the proposed expansion and parking structure of ADR 2005 -026 are visually harmonious with the existing mall buildings and with the site; 2. That the design for the proposed expansion will enhance the existing mall and create a positive physical image and environment; 3. That the height, massing and configuration of the expansion are in scale with the existing mall; 4. That an Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") was prepared for the expansion of up to an additional 600,000 square feet to the Westfield Shoppingtown -Santa Anita Mall. The EIR was certified by the City Council on September 5, 2000; 5. That an EIR Addendum was prepared for ADR 2005 -026 in January 2007 and approved under Resolution No. 6561 concurrent herewith; and 6. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the EIR and EIR Addendum, which were prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") (collectively referred to herein as the Project's "CEQA Documentation "), the 2 6562 Administrative Record, the Staff Report (which includes recommended findings), and the draft resolutions for final action on ADR 2005 -026. SECTIN 3. That for the foregoing reasons, the City Council approves the proposed architectural design review (ADR 2005 -026) subject to the conditions set forth below. CONDITIONS The terms "developer", "applicant ", "owner ", and "Westfield" shall be deemed to refer to the applicant for approval of ADR -026 and all successors in interest. 9. No building permit for any construction on the Property shall be issued unless all of the conditions hereof have been complied with or assurances satisfactory to the Development Services Director have been made to insure that all such conditions will be fulfilled. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, the Developer shall provide (a) proof of issuance of a Caltrans Permit for the construction of the mitigation measure established for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard at Baldwin Avenue West (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.a) or (b) evidence of a completion bond in an amount and form and with a surety approved by the Development Services Director as sufficient to pay for the improvement; provided, however, that if 3 6562 within two years after issuance of a building permit for Phase 1b, Caltrans fails to issue a permit for the improvement, the City may direct the Applicant to contribute the then current cost of the improvement into a City fund for alternative transportation mitigation improvements in the City's sole and absolute discretion, which payment shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any and all other mitigation measures. In this event, this condition shall be deemed satisfied upon payment of the improvement costs into the City fund. 3. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the developer shall pay to the County the cost for the construction of the northbound right turn lane in -lieu of construction for the intersection of Huntington Dr. at Rosemead Blvd. (original Mitigation Measure 7.2.c). The County will incorporate the improvement into their project to widen the intersection. 4. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building for Phase 1 b, the developer shall pay to the City: a. A Transportation Impact fee based on the adopted program for Phase 1 b; and b. The outstanding payment, previously required but not paid, for Phase 1 a's "fair share" of area -wide traffic improvements 4 6562 identified in the City's Transportation Master Plan on a pro -rata "fair share" basis (i.e., "nexus" formula). A nexus study to determine "fair share" responsibility for Phase la shall be prepared by a consultant approved by the City and paid for by the project applicant. 5. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building for Phase 1 b, a $50,000 bond or other security as approved by the City Attorney shall be placed in escrow with the City to be used to monitor and address any neighborhood cut through traffic that results from the proposed project. 6. Any use of the Property which is otherwise subject to the Conditional Use Permit provisions of the City's Zoning ordinance shall require a conditional use permit; provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within Building Area C [mall area] as shown on the Zoning /Design overlay site plan submitted with the 2000 EIR. 7. Phase 1 b shall be an open -air project with open courtyards and landscaping as indicated on Sheet 14 of the Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006. 8. Materials utilized in Phase 1 b for the buildings and parking structure shall be of the materials palette included in the Sheet 15 of the 5 6562 Design Review submittal dated November 15, 2006 and as indicated in all elevations and sections (Sheets 9 through 13). 9. Restaurant uses within Phase lb shall be limited to a maximum of 10,000'square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA). 10. All signs shall be subject to the Municipal Code, except that the following shall be applicable: a. No new freestanding center identification signs or multi- tenant monument signs are permitted for Phase 1 b. Single -sided monument signs shall be only allowed for restaurants /eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more and that have public entrances from the exterior of the shopping mall. Said signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the shopping mall structure or open -air mall area and located within planter areas. The total square footage of each sign shall not exceed 36 square feet. b. Flat, Plexiglas illuminated signs and internally illuminated plastic - faced cabinet signs are prohibited. (Resolution No. 6245) C. Wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurants /eating establishments containing 5,000 sq. ft. or more, theaters /cinemas and a food market. Said signs shall 6 6562 comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regard to allowable square footage. Tenant signs facing on the open -air courtyard area and not exposed to the public right -of -way shall be excluded from this provision. d. All new signage shall be subject to further design review and approval by the Development Services Director through the Sign Design Review process. 11. Final landscape plans in substantial compliance with the conceptual plans included on Sheet 14 of the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006, shall be prepared by a registered landscape architect and shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before any building permit is issued for any part of the project. In addition to substantial conformance with the conceptual plan submitted as Sheet 14, said plans shall include or be in conformance with the following, without limitation: a. In addition to the landscaping required in Section 11 above, three (3) percent of the parking areas shall be landscaped and the planting beds and trees shall be distributed evenly throughout the entire parking area adjacent to Phase 1 b from the new buildings to the existing berms along Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. 7 6562 Landscaping shall not be concentrated in only one (1) portion of the parking area, but dispersed throughout the parking lot. No planting area or island shall have an average width of less than three (3) feet. The planting areas or islands shown on the landscaping plans must be drawn to scale and the plants shall be clearly designated and labeled. A continuous six (6) inch raised concrete curb shall surround all planting areas or islands. The required landscaped buffer areas adjacent to Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue as well as the redesigned landscaping at the southerly entrance of Baldwin Avenue shall not be considered as part of the three (3) percent "landscaping" of the parking areas. Where a parking area abuts the buildings on the Property, the border plantings adjacent to those buildings shall not be considered as part of the landscaping of parking areas. b. The solid exterior walls of the mall and in the courtyard areas shall include decorative landscaping and treatment as shown on the submitted elevations in the Design Submittal dated November 15, 2006 and subject to the approval of the Development Services Director. C. To facilitate the processing of landscaping plans, a plant list shall be prepared giving the botanical and common names of the 8 6562 plants to be used, the sizes to be planted (e.g. 1, 5 or 15 gallon containers) and quantity of each. The plants should be listed alphabetically and assigned key numbers to be used in locating the plants on the plan. d. All new landscape materials shall be of a size and quality in scale with the project. All new trees shall be a minimum of 36" box. All new shrubs shall be a minimum five (5) gallon in size. 12. The owner of the Property shall provide adequate security personnel for the protection and control of persons and property on the site. A security plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Arcadia Police Chief prior to the issuance of the first building permit for all new buildings on the Property (including the parking structure). The owner of the property shall at all times adhere to the approved security plan. Any material modifications of the security plan shall require the approval of the Police Chief, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 13. Final - plans for the proposed parking structure layout shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the parking structure and shall address the issues of adequate turning radii, driveway aisle widths and turning movements into and out of the circulation ramps for standard passenger 9 6562 cars. 14. Interior lighting for the parking structure and all new exterior lighting shall be included on the final plans for review and approval by the Police Chief. Exterior lighting other than safety and/or security lighting shall only be in operation until one hour after operating hours to the extent feasible. 15. There shall be a maximum of three (3) Pavilions (Kiosks) located in the open plaza areas of the project. The final design shall be subject to review and approval by the Development Services Director or his /her designee based on the following criteria: a. Kiosks and cart designs may be animated in nature and shall serve to accentuate the architectural and aesthetic finish of the building facades. b. Individual kiosks may vary in total area; however, no one (1) kiosk shall exceed 150 square feet in area as shown on the submitted plans. C. Kiosks and carts shall be designed to be weatherproof and shall have illumination integrated into the design. d. The uses permitted with the kiosks and carts shall be consistent with Section 2 of Paragraph 16 of Resolution No. 6199 10 6562 dated October 3, 2000. e. There shall be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks, and between kiosks and portable carts, of 15' -0" or as required by the State Building Code. Kiosks and portable carts shall be harmonious in design. 16. Any floor area within the open common area(s) devoted to portable carts (not kiosks) shall not be subject to the City's Zoning Ordinance for providing off - street parking spaces. 17. Westfield LLC shall continuously maintain a list of all current operators of kiosks and portable carts throughout the mall for business licensing purposes. This list shall promptly be furnished to the City Development Services Department upon request. 18. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the City Engineer shall review and approve all striping, signage, traffic control plans and on -site vehicular and pedestrian circulation. 19. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, the intersection of the Gate 8 Racetrack access road and the Westfield. Mall ring road shall be reconstructed to an alignment in substantial conformance with the alignment depicted on Sheet 3 of the Architectural Design Review package with no reduction in the number of 6562 lanes exiting onto Baldwin Avenue. The final alignment shall be reviewed and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 20. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first retail building, ramp access and ADA clearance shall be upgraded or constructed at the intersections of Gate 9 & 10 (the two southernmost entrances to the Westfield Santa Anita mall from Baldwin Avenue). 21. The following conditions shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director: a. The City of Arcadia shall transfer ownership, and Westfield shall accept ownership, of the 12 -inch water main that currently circles the existing mall to Westfield. All modifications made to the existing water distribution main, fire hydrant assemblies, and fire service connections shall be made according to existing City of Arcadia Public Works Standards. b. Water service for Westfield shall be metered at two locations where existing pipeline enters Westfield — at the northwest corner of the property near the Gate 8 entrance to the racetrack and the southwest corner of the property east of Fire Station 106. The City's Public Works Services Department (PWSD) will provide and install two fully equipped metering vaults and two backflow 12 6562 preventers. PWSD will provide full future maintenance of metering vaults, Westfield shall provide future maintenance of the backflow preventers under PWSD inspection,, at the cost and expense of Westfield.. C. The maintenance, repair and relocation of the existing water main, and the installation of any fire hydrants required shall be entirely undertaken by Westfield and at the expense of Westfield. d. New fire sprinkler systems shall be installed by Westfield as required by the Arcadia Fire Department. Backflow preventers on the fire sprinkler systems shall be double check detector assemblies. Backflow preventers on any proposed irrigation system shall be installed by Westfield as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code. e. Inspection of the water main relocation and new water mains, water services, fire services and irrigation services shall be done by the City's Public Works Inspector. 22. The applicant shall submit to the Development Services Director for his /her approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building an on -site vehicular access and circulation plan that proposes, at the easterly perimeter of the subject property, direct vehicular and pedestrian connections between the Westfield Santa Anita 13 6562 Mall and the Santa Anita Racetrack property. The location of the pedestrian access shall be as shown on Sheets 3 and 4 of the Design Review Submittal dated November 15, 2006. The vehicular connection shall be located along the easterly perimeter of the Westfield property in the general location of the existing aisle way that runs perpendicular to the southerly portion of the ring road (existing three- legged intersection controlled by a stop sign). The final location for the vehicular connection shall be determined by the Development Services Director. The applicant shall complete all improvements in accordance with City approved plans. 23. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the applicant shall execute a reciprocal access agreement with the adjacent property owner to the east for a common vehicular connection and a common pedestrian connection at locations approved by the Development Services Director. 24. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for any retail project on the adjacent Santa Anita Racetrack property, the developer shall submit a bond in a form and amount and issued by a surety approved by the City Attorney for the roadway, sidewalk and other improvements on the Westfield property necessary to construct the vehicular and pedestrian connections between the two adjacent properties. !4 6562 25. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first retail building, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief: a. Access to and around structures during construction shall be maintained. A plan shall be submitted outlining all emergency access routes during and after construction. In addition, a detailed excavation plan shall be submitted and subject to approval of, but not limited to, emergency access and water supply. b. An emergency egress plan shall be submitted for affected portions of the existing Mall during and after construction. 26. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the first retail building, the following conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief: a. The basement parking level shall be provided with a smoke removal system for underground firefighting operations. b. The parking structure entrance height shall be designed for access by paramedic ambulances, as determined and approved by the Fire Chief. C. All new retail space and the parking structure shall be interconnected to the existing fire alarm panel. 15 6562 d. All existing fire hydrants and fire department connections in the expansion area shall be relocated to locations approved by the Fire Chief. Additional fire hydrants shall be provided as required by the Fire Chief. e. On -site Class I standpipes shall be required at approved locations as required by the Fire Chief. f. The dumpster location within the parking structure shall have an adequate clear perimeter space for firefighting operations and dumpster removal. In addition, the dumpster location shall have adequate ventilation for firefighting operations. g. All elevators, including service elevators, shall be provided with the length, width and weight capacities. h. An acceptable method of radio communication within both the existing Mall and expansion areas shall be provided and approved by the Fire and Police Chiefs. L Pre -Fire Plans, in a format approved by the Fire Chief, shall be prepared for the entire Mall, including without limitation the new expansion, outlining the hydrant locations, fire department connections, standpipes, fire alarm panels, smoke evacuation fans, and other points of interest as required. 16 6562 j. Prefixed ladders shall be placed at locations approved by the Fire Chief on the parapet walls that lead down to the roof. These ladders shall be capable of supporting a 500 -pound live load. An agreed upon exterior marking on the structure shall be provided on the exterior of the building and visible, designating these interior parapet ladder locations. k. The drop - off -area access at the front of the expansion shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and provide a minimum weight capacity of 70,000 pounds apparatus access. I. Knox boxes shall be provided for access to any restricted areas, including exterior entrances and individual units. m. Westfiield's existing public address system shall be connected to the expansion areas. n. Standby power must be supplied for emergency lighting and the public address system. 27. A Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager shall act as a liaison between the Police Department, Fire Department, Development Services Department, Public Works Services Department, and all tenant contractors throughout the duration of the construction project. A location will be established for all City inspectors and other contractors to 17 6562 coordinate inspections and meet with the Tenant Coordinator and Project Manager. The location shall be provided on plans submitted for building permit. 28. No amplified live entertainment shall be permitted in the outdoor areas of the Mall. 29. The project and the site shall be developed in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title 24) including direct connectivity with the adjacent right -of -ways, i.e., Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. 30. The developer shall defend (with legal counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any and all claims, actions, and /or proceedings against the City and/or its agents, officials, officers, and /or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul (i) this ADR approval, or (ii) the certification of the EIR Addendum in conjunction with this ADR approval, or (iii) any decision, action or failure to act by the City with respect to this ADR application. 31. The City must promptly notify the developer of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate reasonably in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate reasonably in the defense, the developer shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, 18 6562 indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 32. The developer shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this approval and /or CEQA related action, Although the developer is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at is sole discretion, participate in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the developer of any obligation under this condition. 33. The applicant shall provide staffing to monitor the pick -up and drop -off area on the west side of the Mall for the first 30 days following the opening of Phase 1 b or through January 15 if the first thirty days falls within the month of December. At the conclusion of the staffing period, the applicant -shall have an additional ninety (90) days to make any modifications to the operation of the pick -up and drop -off area as they deem necessary to ensure there are no queuing or traffic conflicts. At the conclusion of this ninety (90) -day period, the Development Services Director shall review the proposed operations plan for the pick -up and drop- off area as recommended by the applicant. The applicant shall incorporate and continuously implement any and all modifications to the operations plan as deemed necessary by the Development Services Director. 19 6562 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this 1 day of May. 1 Mayor of the City of rcadia ATTEST: C ity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM & b:;p � P� Stephen Deitsch City Attorney 20 6562 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JAMES H. BARROWS, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that the foregoing Resolution No. 6562 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1s day of May, 2007 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmember Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Wuo and Segal NOES: None ABSENT: None ity Clerk of the City o rcadia 21 6562 Attachment No. 6 NONCE OF EXEMPTION TO: ❑ - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors FROM: City of Ai%,4,1ia Development Services Department/Planning or 240 W. Huntington Dr. ® County Clerk P.O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 60021 1. Project Title: Amendment to Architectural Design Review 2005 -026 and Resolution No. 6562 2. Project Location — Identify street address and Westfield Santa Anita Mall cross streets or attach a map showing project site 400 S. Baldwin Ave (preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2' topographical Arcadia, CA 91006 map identified by quadrangle name): 3. (a) Project Location — City: Arcadia (b) Project Location — County: Los Angeles 4. Description of nature, purpose, and beneficiaries An amendment to one of the conditions of approval in of Project: Resolution No. 6562 for the approved Phase 1B expansion to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. The proposed change does not increase the total square footage approved for Phase 1B because there would be an equal reduction in retail uses (i.e., 13,500 square feet of space previously slated for retail uses would be replaced with an equal amount of restaurant space). 5. Name of Public Agency approving project: City of Arcadia 6. Name_ of Person or Agency carrying out project: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner 7. Exempt status: (check one) (a) ❑ Ministerial project. (b) ❑ Not a project. (c) ❑ Emergency Project. (d) ❑ Categorical Exemption. 15301 State type and class number: (e) ❑ Declared Emergency. (fl ❑ Statutory Exemption. State Code section number: (g) ❑ Other. Explanation: 8. Reason why project was exempt: Minor Alteration to an Existing Facility. 9. Contact Person: Lisa Flores, Senior Planner Telephone: (626) 574 -5445 10. Attach Preliminary Exemption Assessment (Form "A ") before filing. Date Received for Filing: April 30, 2009 (Clerk Stamp Here) Signature (Lead Age y Representative) Title Notice of Exemption \City\2009 FORM `B" Attachment No. 7 We March 23, 2009 .Lisa Flores Senior Planner City of Arcadia 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, Ca. 91066 -6021 Re: !Westfield Santa Anita Dear Lisa: As you know, we submitted our application to modify condition #9 of Resolution #6562. The modification will increase the permitted restaurant use in Phase I from 10,000 sq fl up to 23,500 sq ft-. As discussed in the Fehr and Peers memo, the total GLA for the project will not change. The demand for restaurant space in this phase of the project has exceeded our initial expectation. This is, we believe, in response to the environment being created by the architectural design, lush landscaping, water features and theatrical lighting. These features come together to create a very inviting and relaxing atmosphere attractive to the restaurant customer. Further, the current economic condition has caused the traditional apparel retailer to scale back their expansion plans. We currently have restaurant proposals pending with Panera Bread, Ruby Tuesday and Korean BBQ as shown on the attached lease plan. Each of the restaurant operators is excited about the opportunity to serve the Arcadia community. Your favorable consideration is requested. Sincerely, Jo &He ��' a Development 11601 Wilshire Blvd. 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025 T 310.478.4456 F 310.893.4780 � `� � �\ �``�'t4."�''E iii• ' `� �. �c ` 4 , `� r t fit, �..\ .�..1 _�`�.��:"�1 Y \ ., � .� .. ...... .. .. i • 4. ..-. L,. m Attachment No. 8 f� RECEIVED FI. HR & PFFRS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS M R 12 2009 MEMORANDUM PLANNING SEP,VICES Date: March 4, 2009 To: Jason Kruckeberg, City of Arcadia Copy To: John Healy, Westfield Corporation, Inc. From: Pat Gibson Julie Kentosh Subject. Parking Impacts of Phase 1B Westfield Santa Anita Center Project Ref LA06-1831 Westfield is seeking a modification to one of the conditions of approval for the approved Phase 113 expansion now under construction at Westfield Santa Anita center. Westfield would like to increase the restaurant space in Phase 18 by 13,500 square feet more restaurant than was analyzed in the Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the project. This proposed change does not increase the total square footage approved for Phase 1B because there would be an equal reduction in retail uses (i.e., 13,500 sf of space previously slated for retail uses could be replaced with an equal amount of restaurant space). Fehr & Peers has conducted an assessment of the impact on both traffic and parking as a result of the proposed change to the approved restaurant condition for the Phase 1 B project. APPROVED EXPANSION As published in Chapter VIII of the Addendum to the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion EIR, January 2007 (which has been attached to this memo as Appendix A for ease of reference), Phase 1B of the previously- approved project would expand the Westfield Santa Anita center to include the following Land Uses upon completion of Phase 1 B: 6 1,290,746 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) for Super Regional Shopping Center • 104,855 square feet of GLA for Fine /Casual Dining Restaurant • 3,014 seat Cineplex This represented an addition of 115,000 sf of GLA in the following land uses for the approved Phase 113: • 105,000 square feet of GLA of retail space 0 Up to 10,000 square feet of GLA of restaurant space 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 500 Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 45 8-9916 Fax (310) 394 -7663 www.fehrandpeers.com Jason Kruckeberg, City of Arcadia Copy To: John Healy, Westfield Corporation, Inc. f p March 4, 2009 F is ri ii & 1' F r i:; Page 2 IMANSPUNIATTON CONSULTANTS PROPOSED MODIFICATION The proposed modification to Phase 1B of the approved project includes a shift of 13,500 square feet of GLA from retail space to restaurant space. With the modified restaurant condition, the site would include the following Land Uses upon completion of Phase 1 B: • 1,277,246 square feet of GLA for Super Regional Shopping Center • Up to 118,355 square feet of GLA for Fine /Casual Dining Restaurant • 3,014 seat Cineplex Thus, Phase 1 B with the modified restaurant condition would add 115,000 sf of GLA as follows: • 91,500 square feet GLA of retail space • Up to 23,500 square feet GLA of restaurant space The following paragraphs analyze the ramifications of the proposed change. TRAFFIC IMPACTS Table 4 of the traffic impact report' summarized the trip generation for the proposed project. Phase 1B was projected to add 176 new trips to the street system in the afternoon peak hour. The trip generation calculation was based on the amount of "regional shopping center" floor area plus the number of cinema seats in each phase of the development. Nowhere in the calculation is the amount of restaurant space discussed. This is because the Project "fits" within the definition of a regional shopping center. The Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers define a regional shopping center as a collection of land uses where at least 80% of the uses within the project are retail uses. For purposes of a regional shopping center, non - retail uses are defined by Urban Land Insitute and the International Council of Shopping Centers as restaurant, entertainment, cinema and office uses. When the amount of restaurant, entertainment, cinema, and office space exceeds 20% of the total square footage of the project, that project should be considered a mixed -use development rather than a regional shopping center. Even with the proposed change to Phase 1 B, Westfield Santa Anita would contain only 13% non - retail uses ([118,355 of restaurant + 73,938 of cinema] / 1,469,539 total sf = 13.1 %) and therefore the trip generation rates for a regional shopping center still apply to the modified Phase 1B project. Thus, the change to Phase 1B restaurant space would not change the trip generation of the project, and therefore the conclusions of the FEIR would still be valid. ' Traffic and Parking Analysis for Westfield Santa Anita Expansion Project, Fehr & Peers, December 2006 pg. 26 r' Jason Kruckeberg, City of Arcadia Copy To: John Healy, Westfield Corporation, Inc. March 4, 2009 F & F Page 3 INANSVORWIDW CQNS1111AN15 PARKING IMPACTS Pre -Phase 1B Expansion Conditions The parking analysis conducted for the January 2007 Addendum used the Urban. Land Institute Shared Parking model to analyze the parking demand patterns at the center. The model was calibrated to replicate the existing peak parking demand of 6,610 spaces during a mid -day peak hour of a Saturday in the peak month of December. This peak demand was counted at the site with Phase 1A open and in full operation. Approved Phase 1 B Parking Conditions As approved, Phase 1B would provide a total of 6,204 parking spaces to support the center. This represents a parking surplus of 460 spaces when compared to the 5,744 spaces required by City code. This would remain the same with the modified restaurant condition. The Urban Land Institute Shared Parking model calibrated for steady state conditions estimated that the approved Phase 1B would generate a peak parking demand of 6,849 spaces (Table 1) on a Saturday in December. This demand represents the busiest hour of the year at the project. Analysis of monthly parking demand over the course of a year suggested that the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the peak parking demand for every month of the year except December (Figures 1 and 2). Figures 1 and 2 also show that the parking demand during all months of the year from January through November would have more than sufficient parking to meet the demand. In fact, during most days of the year there will be more than 1,000 empty spaces in the center's parking supply. Therefore, the proposed parking supply of 6,204 spaces would be sufficient to meet the demands of the center plus the approved Phase 1 B parking demand on all but December Saturdays. These four peak days of the year would require that an off -site employee program, as proposed by the applicant and set forth in the approved FEIR, be continued in order to meet the total parking demand during the holiday season. The demand analysis was performed with the modified restaurant condition to determine the adequacy of the parking supply. As a result of the additional restaurant space, the site is expected to generate a peak parking demand of 6,932 spaces on a Saturday in December (Table 2), which represents an increase of 83 spaces over the level predicted in the original project. Again, this is the parking demand expected during the busiest hour of the year on a December weekend. Analysis of parking demand over the course of a year suggests that the parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would satisfy the parking demand of the Phase 1 B project with the modified restaurant condition during every month except December (Figures 3 and 4). Under the modified condition, the project would continue to have over 1,000 empty spaces on all weekdays of the year except December and it would have hundreds of empty parking spaces an all weekend days except December. For example, Table 3 shows the hourly parking demand for the modified Phase 1B during the month of June, an average shopping month. On a June weekday, the peak parking demand never reaches 5,000 spaces which means that even with the additional restaurant space in place in Phase 16; the mall would still have over 1,200 empty parking spaces during the busiest hour of a June weekday. Jason Kruckeberg, City of Arcadia Copy To: John Healy, Westfield Corporation, Inc. March 4, 2009 F I'll R& F f IZ Page 4 TAANSPIASATJON CONSMIAN1S Consistent with the approved FEIR, the applicant will continue an off -site employee parking program for weekends throughout December. The number of off -site employee parking spaces would increase by approximately 83 spaces due to the increased restaurant space. As stated in the FEIR, the applicant would share the holiday parking program with the City each year to demonstrate the availability of the necessary off -site spaces on an annual basis. CONCLUSION Westfield is seeking to modify a condition of approval for Phase 113 leasing to increase the amount of restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet — an increase of 13,500 square feet. The amount of retail space in Phase 1B would be reduced by the requested 13,500 square feet so that there is no net increase in total square footage for Phase 16, The shift from retail to restaurant would not affect the trip generation of the project and therefore the traffic conclusions of the FEIR remain valid. As was the case with the approved Phase 1B project, the proposed parking supply of 6,204 parking spaces would satisfy the parking demand of the Phase 1 B project with the modified restaurant condition at all times of the year except December weekends, during which the applicant would continue its off -site employee parking program, as described in the approved FEIR. The change of restaurant space allocation would represent an increase of approximately 83 parking spaces during the busiest hour of the year (i.e., December weekends). However, even with this increased parking demand, the proposed 6,204 -space supply would still have over 1,000 empty parking spaces on most days of the year. The proposed supply would be adequate to meet the weekday parking demand during the December peak shopping period. Indeed, the only times of the year when demand would exceed supply would be the weekends in December, which is the same conclusion reached for the approved Phase 1 B. Therefore, the approved parking supply of 6,204 spaces would satisfy the parking demand of the Phase 1B project with the modified restaurant condition, and the conclusions of the EIR are still valid. The applicant would continue to confirm with the City its off -site holiday parking program each year. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or comments regarding these findings. Figure 1 — Weekday Month -By -Month Estimated Parking Demand for Approved Phase 1 B Land Uses 700C Parking Supply: 6,204 stalls 6000 5000 4000 U) C" C Y L a 3000 NN I I m INRIN NZ Dec Lat Dec Figure 2 — Weekend Month -By -Month Estimated Parking Demand for Approved Phase 1 B Land Uses 8000 7000 6000 4 1 c, 0 �a c 4000 L IL 011i1c 2000 1000 Parking Supply: 6,204 stalls .tan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lat Dec Month Figure 3 — Weekday Month -By -Month Estimated Parking Demand for Modified Phase 1 B Land Uses 7000 Parking Supply: 6,204 stalls 6000 5000 --�� 4000 CO C Y a 3000 Dec Lat Dec Figure 4 -- Weekend Month -By -Month Estimated Parking Demand for Modified Phase 1 B Land Uses 8000 7000 Parking Supply: 6,204 stalls 6000 5000 C3 N Cm C 4000 Y L a 3000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lat Dec Month Table 1 Project: WesHkkf Santa Anka Description: Existing plus Phase 18 Peak Month Parking Demand SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK MONTH! DECI AMM - PFAK PERIOD- 2 Pill- NIFFKEND Kiilia Weekday Weekend Weekday yyeokend Non. Non. Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Project Date Base De" captive Project Base DrivMg Captive Project All Acq Parking Agg A4 Par" Land Use Cue Unit Raft Ratio Ratio Rata Unit Rate Ratio Ratio Rate Unit 1 PM Dseamber Demand 2 PM December Demand Super Regional Shopping Center (>600k) 1,290,746 at GLA 3.04 1.00 1.00 3.04 Acsf GLA 3.42 1.00 1.00 3.42 AW GLA 1.00 1.00 3,924 1.00 1.00 4,414 Employee 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.76 Amf GLA 0.66 1.00 1.00 0.86 /kaf GLA 1.00 1.00 961 1.00 1.00 1 Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant 104,655 at GLA 14.50 1.00 0.75 10.88 Arsf GLA 16.15 1.00 0.75 12.11 Q GLA 1.00 1.00 655 0.75 1.00 825 E 2.61 1.00 1.00 2.61 Amf GLA 2.65 1.00 1.00 2.85 /kst GLA 1.00 1.00 247 1.00 1.00 269 Ckteplex 3,014 seats 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 /seat 0.26 1.00 0.75 0.20 /seat 1.00 0.23 44 0.75 0.67 217 Em 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /amt 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 f /seat 1.00 0.50 9 1.00 0.80 14 11 base data has been modified from default values. Customer 4823 Customer 5456 Employee 1237 Employee 1393 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 6080 Total 6849 Table 2 Project: WeaWeld Santa AMta Exb** Woe ModMed Phase 18 Peak Month Parking Demand SNARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY 3=009 TABLE 3 - HOURLY PARKING DEMAND PATTERNS FOR MODIFlED PHASE 18 LAND USES - AVERAGE MONTH (JUNE) ,wrre Estlmsted Peak Hour PwkIng Demsnd On Weekend Overall Pk AM Peak Hr PM Peak Hr Eve Peak Hr SAM 7 AM SAM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 1 3 PM 1 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM I 7 PM a PM 9 PM I IOPMI 11 PM 12 AM 2 PM 11 AM 2 PM 6 P M Super R lonal Sh Center >600k 67% 29 147 295 884 1,473 1 57 2,652 2,946 2,946 2,799 2.652 2.35712210 1,915 1,4731 1.031 1 442 2.94S 1,915 2,946 2,357 E 80% 88 132 351 659 703 791 878 878 878 878 878 834 747 703 659 571 395 132 878 781 878 747 Fm Cas" DM Restmwant 95% - - 205 646 1,024 10,24 887 546 683 1,024 =7 ,365 1 1 1 1,297 1 341 887 546 887 1297 Employee 100% 67 169 253 303 303 303 303 303 253 253 337 337 337 337 337 337 286 118 303 303 303 337 eokwW M W 82% - - - - 96 217 265 265 265 289 289 396 482 482 482 386 241 265 265 289 80% - - - - 12 14 14 18 18 24 24 24 24 24 24 17 12 14 14 24 Customer 29 .147 295 884 1,678 2,481 3 477 3 893 4 098 3 757 3 747 3 3 943 3 1 3 762 3,320 2,810 1,852 582 4 098 2,4 61 4,098 3,943 TOTAL DEMAND E BB 199 520 912 1,006 1094 1,193 1 195 1,195 1,149 1,149 1,195 1 108 1,064 2 1,00 932 756 435 130 1 195 1 094 1 195 Reserved . 1 108 117 346 1 615 1 1,796 1 2.684 1 3.S55 4 1 5 088 5 4 6 4,896 160 5 OSI 5025 4,782 4 3,586 2,287 712 5 . 3,555 5 5051 ULI Base Data Has Been Modified. 5 3,555 5 5 TABLE 3 - HOURLY PARKING DEMAND PATTERNS FOR MODIFlED PHASE 18 LAND USES - AVERAGE MONTH (JUNE) APPENDIX A: CHAPTER Vill OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN EXPANSION EIR, JANUARY 2007 VIII. PARKING ANALYSIS This chapter presents an analysis of the existing and future parking patterns at Westfield Santa Anita. PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS The City of Arcadia parking ordinance for a retail /regional shopping center requires 4.75 parking spaces per 1,000 sf GLA. Using the City of Arcadia's definition of retail square footage for Westfield Santa Anita', a total of 5,744 spaces would be required to accommodate the parking requirements for the existing center plus Phase 1 B. With the development of Phase 2, the total number of required parking spaces would be 6,698. Tables 12 and 13 show the calculation of Code requirements. Therefore, the current supply of 5,927 spaces on the Westfield Santa Anita site would not be adequate to accommodate the future land uses proposed under either of the expansion phases. The applicant will provide additional parking spaces to accommodate the increase in square footage. Phase 1 B development would add two levels of parking (ground plus one underground level) under the expansion portion of the shopping center. The total parking supply increase resulting from Phase 1 B construction would bring the on -site parking supply to 6,204, resulting in a parking surplus of 460 spaces when compared to City code requirements. The detailed parking planning for Phase 2 is expected to occur nearer to the time of the construction of this phase. Parking increases are expected to take the on -site parking supply to approximately 7,235 spaces, exceeding the City code by 537 spaces. 7 See Appendix A for a discussion of square footage definitions. .c TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSED SUPPLY WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA PHASE 1 B PROJECT Land Use Size (sf) 1 Retail 1,290,746 2 Restaurant 104,855 3 Restaurant -Freestanding 0 4 Cinema 73,938 Less City Adjustment 260,168 Total city GLA 1,209,371 Total Spaces Required @ 4.75/1000 5,744 Total Spaces Provided 6,204 Su !plus (Shortage) 460 Notes: The City of Arcadia bases its parking requirements for regional shopping centers on the net square footage of the retail space. As per the City definition, net space credits a portion of the department store space and a lesser portion of the retail shopping center. TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF PARKING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND PROPOSED SUPPLY WESTFIELD SANTA ANITA PHASE 2 PROJECT Land Use Size (st) 1 Retail 1,463,741 2 Restaurant 104,855 3 Restaurant- Freestanding 20,000 4 Cinema 110,000 Less City Adjustment 288,484 Total city GLA 1,410,112 Total Spaces Required @ 4.75/1000 6,698 Total Spaces Provided 7,235 Surplus (Shortage) 537 Notes: The City of Arcadia bases its parking requirements for regional shopping centers on the net square footage of the retail space. As per the City definition, net space credits a portion of the department store space and a lesser portion of the retail shopping center. EXISTING PEAK PARKING CONDITIONS Table 14 shows the results of a parking occupancy count conducted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. This day typically represents the busiest day of the year at regional shopping centers. The mid - afternoon peak hour is the target hour recommended by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) for establishing the appropriate size of a shopping center's parking supply. On the peak day of the year, there were approximately 168 empty parking spaces in the 5,859 - space on -site lot available in December 2004. The empty spaces were concentrated in the far northwest and southwest portions of the site. While there were other locations .where single spaces were available, the cars moving in the aisles seeking a space outnumbered the available spaces and therefore the remainder of the lot could be considered completely full. In addition to the on -site lot, shopping center - related vehicles were parked in two off -site areas. There were 136 vehicles parked in the "tunnel" parking lot adjacent to Driveway D off Huntington Drive. These appeared to be a combination of employee and customer vehicles. There were also 783 vehicles parked in the employee off -site lot located at the Santa Anita Race Track. These employee parking spaces were served by a shuttle bus that delivered employees toMrom a number of stops along the center's ring road. Thus the overall parking demand for the center on the busiest day of the year was 6,610 spaces. This parking demand represents an overall parking ratio of 4.88 spaces per 1,000 sf of development. ULI and ICSC found in national studies that the peak parking demand for shopping centers the size of this project was 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf GLA. The parking demand ratio for Westfield Santa Anita is higher than the national average at least in part because the parking demand was measured during the first Christmas season that the new expansion of the center was open. The parking demand patterns at the center can be expected to decrease after the "newness" of the center expansion wears off and the traffic and parking patterns reach a more steady state. 63 TABLE 14 EXISTING PARKING DEMAND -- PEAK DAY 11TOTAL SUPPLY 5 1 859 EMPTY SPACES NW LOT -- JC PENNEY 102 SW LOT -- FIRE STATION , Subtotal (Subtract) 168 OFF -SITE DEMAND DRIVEWAY D LOT 136 RACE TRACK EMPLOYEE 783 Subtotal 919 IITOTAL DEMAND 6,61011 Parking Occupancy counts conducted at 2:30pm on Saturday December 18, 2004 SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS The City of Arcadia allows for reduction in required parking provisions through the use of a shared parking analysis for multiple land uses on one parcel. Shared parking is the use of a parking space by vehicles generated by two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment. The ability to share parking spaces is the result of two conditions: • Variations in the accumulation of vehicles by hour, by day or by season of the individual land uses • Relationships among the land uses that result in visiting multiple land uses on the same auto trip Urban Land Institute Shared Parkina Model ULI sponsored a national study in 1984 that established a basic methodology for analyzing parking demand in mixed -use developments and developed averages for parking rates by land use. The national study was updated in 2004 by the ULI and the analysis presented in this report utilizes the latest data available from that update. Fehr & Peers /Kaku Associates staff served on the team that prepared that update. Shared Parkina Using Calibrated ULI Model ULI established the demand ratio for a retail /regional shopping center with over 600,000 sf at 4.0 spaces per 1,000 sf of development on the weekday and 4.5 spaces on the weekend. The Certified EIR provided for shopping center uses as well as freestanding restaurants, a food court, and cinema components. While the food court is normally included in the retail square footage for parking generation purposes, the potential freestanding restaurants would generate the need for 18 spaces /1,000 sf and 20 spaces /1,000 sf on the weekday and weekend, respectively. The cinema would generate the need for 0.20 spaces and 0.27 spaces per seat on the weekday and weekend,. respectively. 65 These national averages were used as a starting point to calibrate the ULI model to reflect conditions at Westfield Santa Anita. Table 15 shows the land use assumptions included in the parking analyses for the existing conditions, Phase 1 B, and Phase 2 of the development. Table 16A shows that the national average parking demand rates for retail, restaurant, and cinema were used in the calibration of the shared parking model. It was assumed that a portion of the visitors to the restaurant and the cinema would also be visiting the retail portions of the project and that therefore these were "captured trips" already accounted for in the retail parking demand. The analysis estimated the captive market for both restaurant and cinema at 25% — in other words, 75% of the customers to the restaurants and cinema came to the shopping center for that reason only and did not visit any of the other land uses in the project. T hese captive market assumptions are well within the range of captive market measurements found in other mixed- use developments as described in the ULI research As shown in Tables 14A and 146, the shared parking model is calibrated to the existing peak day conditions at Westfield Santa Anita in that the model results match the actual parking occupancy counts of December 18, 2004. Table 16B shows that the calibrated model indicates a peak parking demand of 6,610 spaces, matching the actual count of 6,610. As mentioned above, the December 18, 2004 counts represent "Opening Day" conditions for Phase 1A expansion and therefore these parking demand rates can be expected to decrease as the travel patterns to the new stores and restaurants stabilize. Table 17A shows the input assumptions for the existing shopping center assuming that the restaurant and retail demands decrease by only 5 %. Under these assumptions, Table 178 shows that the "Steady State" peak parking demand for the existing project can be expected to reach 6,296 spaces on the peak day of the year. Phase 1B Shared Parkins Demand Using the model calibrated for steady state conditions at the center, the center with Phase 1B development would generate a peak demand of 6,849 spaces (Tables 18A and 1813). This is the amount of parking demand that can be expected on the peak day of the year. e Shared Parking in Mixed Use Developments, Volume 2, Urban Land Institute, 2005 X . TABLE 15 LAND USE BY DEVELOPMENT PHASE LAND USE EXISTING PHASE 1 B PHASE 2 ADDED TOTAL BUILDOUT ADDED SUBTOTAL ,RETAIL 1,185,746 105,000 1,290,746 172,995 1,463,741 RESTAURANT 94,855 10,000 104,855 0 104,855 RESTAURANT - FREESTANDING 0 0 0 20,000 20,000 CINEMA (4 73,938 0 73,938 36,062 110,000 seats 3,0141 0 3, 014 1,486 4, 500 TOTAL 1,354,539 115 00L _ j,469,5 39 1 _ 229,0571 1,698,586 NOTE: Existing sf includes Phase 1 A Table 16A Projects Westfield Sand Anita Description- Existing (Including Phase 1A) Opening Day Peak Month Parking Demand SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK 11a(W1W- nECFMAFP - PFAmr PFPK1n• f DU 101162006 Vftekday Weekday Weekend Non- Non- Peak Hr Peak No Estimated Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimmrled Project Date Base Driving Captive Project, Base Driving CePd- P. I A Parking Act Acl Parking Land Use Quantity Unit Rate Ratio Ratio Rate Unit Rate Ratio Ratio Rate Unit 1 PM I December Demand 2 PM December Deepnd uper Regional Shopping Center ( >Wok) 1,105,746 sf GLA 320 1.00 1.00 - 320 ftf GLA 3.60 1.00 1.00 3.60 /ksf GLA " 1.00 3,794 1.00 1.00 4,269 Em 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.00 Iksf GLA 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 A. GLA 1.00 1.00 949 1.00 1.00 1,057 FnelC,asual Dining Restaurant 94,055 sf GLA 1525 1.00 0.75 11.44 IW GLA 17.00 1.00 0.75 12.75 /ksf GlA 1.00 1.00 814 0.75 1.00 7% E ' 2.75 1.00 1.00 2.75 Amf GLA 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 /lot GLA 1.00 1.00 235 1.00 1.00 257 3,014 seats 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 /seat 026 1.00 0.75 0.20 /seat 1.00 023 44 0.75 0.67 217 Em 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 1.00 0.50 9 1.00 0.00 14 Customer 4652 Customer 5272 Employee 1193 Employee 1336 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 5845 Total 6610 Table 76B Protect WertMW Santa AnNa 10H6/2006 Descdptlon: Exbtlnp O dudkp Phase 7A) Openkq Day Peak Month Parking Demand Table 17A Project: WesfMld Santa Anita Description: Exlsti ng (Including Phase IA) Steady Stale Peak Month Parking Demand SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER - PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM_ MIFF M n 10/162oos Weekday Weekend Weekday Weekend Non. Non. Peak Hr Peak Mo Estimated Peak Hr Peak No Estimated Project Data Base Driving Captive Project Base Driving Captive Project Adj AcI Parking Adj AcQ Parting Land Use Qua Unit Role Raft Ratio Rate Unit Rile Ratio Ratio Rate unit 1 PM Decambar Dsrrarid 2 PM December Demand Super Regional Shopping Center (>600k) 1,185,746 sf GLA 3.04 1.00 1.00 3.04 W GLA 3.42 1.00 1.00 3.42 "GLA 1.00 1.00 3,605 1.00 1.00 4,055 Em 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.76 Atsf GLA 0.88 1.00 1.00 0.66 W GLA 1.00 1.00 got 1.00 1.00 1 Fine/Casual Dining Restaurant 94,655 sf GLA 14.50 1.00 0.75 10.88 Aaf GLA 16.15 1.00 0.75 12.11 And GLA 1.00 1.00 773 0.75 1.00 747 Employee 2.61 1.00 1.00 2.61 Amf GLA 2.85 1.00 1.00 2.85 Acsf GLA 1.00 1.00 223 1.00 1.00 243 Cineplex 3.014 seats 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 Aleat 0.26 1.00 0.75 0.20 /seal 1.00 0.23 44 0.75 0.67 217 Em 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seat 7.00 0.50 9 1 1.00 1 0.80 14 UI I base data has been modified from default values. Customer 4422 Customer 5019 Employee 1133 Employee 1277 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 5555 Total 6296 TaNe 178 Project WasWekd Santa Anita tatEil2006 Description: Fxhting (including Phase tA) Shady State Peak Month Parking Demand Table 16A Project: Weatleld Santa Arita Description: Ex"M plus Phase 18 Peak Month Parking Demand SHARED PARIONG DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK MONTH: DECEMRER - PFAK PFRIM- f Pat YIT.PKMm 10/16!1008 - Land Use Project Data Chat Unit Base Rate Driving Ratio weekday Non- Captive Ratio Project Rate Base Unit Rate Driving Ratio Weekend Non - Captive Ratio Project Rate Unit Weekday Peak Hr Peak Mo Adi EsUmaEed Parking Demand Peak Hr Acl Weekend Peak No Estlnated Parkhg Demand 1 PM December 2 PM Daoernber Super Regional Shopping Center ( >800k) 1290,748 of GLA 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.04 Amf GLA 3.42 1.00 1.00 3.42 Acs► GLA 1.00 1.00 3,924 1.00 1.00 4,414 E 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.76 Acaf GL4 0.86 1.00 1.00 0.86 Aoi GLA 1.00 1.00 981 1.00 1.00 1 110 FarelCastrel Dining Restaurant 104,855 sf GLA 14.50 1.00 0.75 10.66 Amf GLA 16.15 1.00 12.11 Aud GLA 1.00 1.00 655 0.75 1.00 825 Em 2.61 1.00 1.00 2.61 Aaf GLA 2.85 1.00 2:85 *d GLA 1.00 1.00 247 1.00 1.00 269 fep Cklex 3,014 assts 0.19 1.00 0.75 0.14 /seat 026 1.00 10.7E5 020 /seat 1.00 023 44 0.75 0.67 217 Employee 0.01 1.00 1.00 0.01 /seal 0.01 1.00 0.01 /seal 1.00 0.50 9 1.00 0.80 14 UUJ base data has been modifkd from default vakas. Cusfanar 4823 Customer 5456 Employee 1237 Employee 1393 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Total 8080 Total 6849 Tahie ISO Pmjoct Wasen.a Santa Anita 10/1&2006 Description: Existing plus Phase 18 Peak Month Parking oenmW Table 19 and Figures 15 and 16 show the monthly parking demand for Phase 1B over the course of the year. Again these numbers represent the peak parking demand for a weekday and a Saturday in each month and in most cases these peak demands would occur for only one hour of the day. The proposed Phase 1 B parking supply of 6,204 spaces, for example, would satisfy the peak parking demand for every month of the year except December. The proposed parking supply would require that an off -site employee parking program be continued during December weekends in order to meet the total parking demand during the holiday shopping season. Figure 17 shows the hourly parking patterns for December conditions. Phase 2 Shared Parking Demand The Phase 2 development would require a parking supply of 7,913 spaces (Tables 20 A and 20B) in order to meet the parking demand on the busiest day of the year. A review of the parking demand patterns in Table 19 shows that an on -site parking supply of 7,235 spaces would meet the peak parking demand for all months of the year except weekends in December. PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY Table 21 shows that the proposed on -site parking supplies for both Phase 1 B and Phase 2 would meet the projected parking demand for all days of the year except weekends during the peak month of the year. Thus, both phases of the development would require a continuation of the off -site employee parking program for weekends during the month of December. The proposed on -site parking supply would be sufficient to meet the peak demand during all other times of the year. The level of employee off -site parking needed for Phases 1 B and 2 is consistent with the level of employee parking activity and shuttle bus operation that is now utilized by the Westfield Santa Anita. 74 TABLE 19 WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN SANTA ANITA PEAK PARKING DEMAND PHASE SUPPLY PEAK PARKING DEMAND BY MONTH PHASE 1 B JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC LATE DEC d kend 6204 , 6,204 4.181 4,572 4 4,574 4.569 4,994 4,501 4,902 4.698 5,125 4,784 5,199 4,743 5,113 4,883 5,287 4 494 4,893 4 5,075 4 958 5 479 6 060 6,849 5,357 5,920 RASE 2 kday kend 7 235 7,235 4 5,327 4 5,315 5,288 5,806 5,207 5,690 5 5 960 5,559 6,058 5,533 5;971 5,673 6 5,194 5,672 5,361 5,893 5,734 6,369 6,953 7,913 6,233 6,897 FIGURE 15 -- PHASE 1 B WEEKDAY MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND 7000 .111 5000 4000 w of C Y L 3000 Parking Supply: 6,204 NO INS ' m AN Dec Lat Dec FIGURE 16 -- PHASE 1 B WEEKEND MONTH -BY -MONTH ESTIMATED PARKING DEMAND 8000 7000 Parking Supply: 6,204 stalls 1 1,Y, a� R co c 4000 40 CL 3000 2000 1000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Month Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lat Dec FIGURE 17 - PHASE 1 B PEAK MONTH DAILY PARKING DEMAND BY HOUR 7000 Supply: 6,204 stalls - 5000 co R w 04000 Y L cc IL Kfflf 2000 1000 0 ® Weekday 0 Weekend P� Hour Table 2tlA Project Westlieid Santa Antra Description: ExIsfkip ptus Phase 2 Pak Month Pari ft Dernand SHARED PARKING DEMAND SUMMARY PEAK MONTH: DECEMBER — PEAK PERIOD: 2 PM WEEKEND Weekday IAkakMrd 7 Weekday Non Non- Peak Hr Psak Mo bled Pak Pr tO� Bass DrNkg Captive Project Base Drivhrp Captive Project Perfp Ad KY Unit Refs Ratio Ratio Raft Unit Raft Ratio Ratio Rafe Unit fPM nm_,mhv n_d � 10/172008 1.00 1 0.50 14 1.00 1 0.80 1 22 Customer 5534 Cushuner 8312 Em"m 1419 Employee 1801 Reserved 0 Reserved 0 Table 208 Project Westfield Santa Anita Description: Existing plus Phase 2 Peak Month Parking Demand 10117/2008 December Estimated Peak Hoax Parldnil Demand Overall Pk AM Peak W PM Peak Hr Eve Peak W December SAM 7AM SAM SAM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM IPM 3PM 4PM SPM 6PM 7PM RPM GPM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM IPM 11 AM IPM 6PM ftw R Cerda >60M 100% 45 223 688 1,335 2 3 4 4.450 4 450 4 8 3 783 3 580 3 338 893 2,225 1 335 445 4450 3 338 4 450 3 560 100% 111 187 445 834 945 1056 1112 1112 1112 1112 1058 1058 1056 1001 634 445 167 1112 1058 1112 1058 Restau ant 100% Overall Pk AM Peak W 20 4 543 1018 1018 7 AM 543 879 1,018 290 1358 1 1358 1358 1 1018 339 1018 543 101 8 1 E 100% 12 AM 65 163 245 293 293 293 293 F4450 245 245 325 328 326 328 326 326 277 114 293 293 293 326 Week s 23% 5006 3504 5008 4005 29 65 189 81 81 88 88 118 147 147 118 96 59 65 1007 66 88 Employee 50% 1 59 1133 1 1070 Fkta/Canral Din' Restaurant 11 14 17 17 23 23 23 23 23 23 16 11 14 1 572 14 23 TOTAL DEMAND Cuslorna 45 223 886 1,335 2852 3881 5052 5534 71 5074 4 98B 4889 4938 4,814 4 398 3 730 2,743 1 559 398 5534 3881 5 534 4 938 356 111 232 808 1,079 1 1 349 1416 1 419 1 1 374 1 1,405 1 1,350, 1!1831 794 460 125 1419 1,349 109 1,405 Reserved 508 470 294 323 323 353 ea 80% . 50 22 22 27 27 36 35 36 36 35 1551 4551 1,276 1 2.4141 3,a90 1 5 6.45a 1 6 6,832 6,4461 6,362 62% 3 31 6,219 5 4,9131 3,537 2 5231 6,953 5 6 953 6343 UU bus data has been modified from dtlault values. 11 3 776 2 355 530 6953 6,343 December Weekend Estimated Peak Hour Parldng Demand Overall Pk AM Peak W PM Peak W Eve Peak W SAM 7 AM SAM SAM 10 AM 11 AM IPM 2 PM 3 PM 14 PM SP M GPM 7 PM G PM RPM 70 PM 11 PM 12 AM 2 PM 11 AM 2 PM B PM Super R Cella >600k 100% SO 250 507 7,752 3004 3504 4 758 5006 5006 4 758 4505 4005 3 755 3 2503 1 752 751 5006 3504 5008 4005 700% 728 189 504 944 1007 1133 1 1 1 9 1 59 1186 1070 1007 944 818 587 189 1 59 1133 1 1070 Fkta/Canral Din' Restaurant 700% 227 605 1 134 983 605 756 1 734 1438 1 572 t 512 t 512 1436 1 734 378 983 605 983 1438 Emplovea 100% 71 178 267 320 320 J�W 320 320 257 267 356 356 356 356 356 356 303 125 320 320 320' 356 VUewmw 67% 285 323 323 323 353 353 470 568 588 508 470 294 323 323 353 ea 80% . 50 22 22 27 27 36 35 36 36 35 36 25 18 22 22 36 Cusbrna TOTAL DEMAND Reserved UU base data has been modified kom detauti vakws. 11 250 501 1 752 3 31 4109 8155 6 312 5 934 5 835 5 992 5 794 5 737 5 354 4 603 3 776 2 355 672 6 312 4109 6 312 5 794 726 260 682 1 11 1 327 7 453 1 601 1 601 7 553 1 553 1 588 1162 1399 1336 t 10 959 517 143 1 601 1 1 1,462 176 570 1 183 2 963 4 558 5 7 7 7,9131 7487 7,3881 7 17,256 7 6 5,813 4735 28 72 815 7,913 7 913 5,562 5-562 7,913 7,913 7,255 7,255 TABLE 21 SHARED PARKING SUMMARY PHASE EXISTING EXISTING PHASE 1 B PHASE 2 OPENING DAY STEADY STATE BUILDOUT SUPPLY 5,859 5,859 6,204 7,235 TYPICAL MONTH (MAY) DEMAND WEEKDAY 4,525 4,305 4,698 5,443 WEEKEND 4,945 4,713 5,125 5,960 TYPICAL MONTH SURPLUS (DEFICIT) WEEKDAY 1,334 1,554 1,506 1,792 WEEKEND 914 1,146 1,079 1,275 PEAK MONTH DEMAND WEEKDAY 5,845 5,555 6,060 6,953 WEEKEND 6,610 6,296 6,849 7,983 PEAK MONTH SURPLUS (DEFICIT) WEEKDAY 14 304 144 282 WEEKEND -751 -437 -645 -748 Table 21 shows that with the mitigation measure to provide off -site parking for employees to accommodate the peak weekend parking demands in December of each year, the parking demand on weekends during the peak month of the year would be mitigated. The applicant implemented the off -site employee parking program during the peak weekends of December 2005. Under an agreement with Metro, the large parking garage at the Sierra Madre Villa Metro Gold Line station was used as the site for employee shuttle parking. The use of Gold Line parking supply is possible because the only time the off -site parking would be needed is during December weekends when this venue is lightly used. Other potential sites for off -site employee parking include surface lots in the vicinity of the shopping center including the Los Angeles County government office and the Arboretum along Baldwin, office parking lots along Santa Anita, and school parking lots throughout the community. PARKING MITIGATION The applicant should supply the City with an off -site parking management plan for each year identifying: • The number of off -site spaces required based on the amount of leased space within the shopping center • The location of the required number of parking spaces for that holiday period • Agreements with the owners of those spaces • A transportation plan identifying the shuttle operator and the hours of operation for those spaces located beyond walking distance The off -site parking management plan would require the approval of the City Engineer. 82 M R, 7 83 -C.a DATE: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Development Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director By: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator Prepared By: Silva Vergel, Business License Officer SUBJECT: APPEAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE REVOCATION FOR NOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY OF ARCADIA MASSAGE THERAPIST REGULATIONS BY BEST HEALTH CENTER AT 25 N. SANTA ANITA AVENUE, #C Recommendation: Deny appeal and uphold revocation SUMMARY The Business License office revoked the business license for Best Health Center, an acupuncturist's office located at 25 N. Santa Anita, #C on May 20, 2009 at the request of the Arcadia Police Department for non - compliance with the City of Arcadia Massage Therapist Regulations. Specifically, this license was revoked because the massage therapy activities were not incidental and secondary to the acupuncturist business. Chao Pang, owner /operator of Best Health Center, filed an appeal of the Business License revocation on May 26, 2009. Copies of the revocation notice and appeal letter are attached as Exhibits 'A' and 'B'. The Business License Review Board met on June 3, 2009 and voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the revocation of the business license for Best Health Center be upheld per Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6216.7 (see p.2). The Board's recommendation is based on a finding that Best Health Center is in violation of Section 6418.3 of the massage therapist regulations, which require that massage therapy business activities be purely incidental and secondary to the established business. The City's Massage Therapist Regulations (Article VI, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code) are attached as Exhibit 'E', and the minutes of the June 3, 2009 Board meeting are attached as Exhibit 'C'. BACKGROUND According to Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6216.7, the Business License Officer may revoke a business license when there is a violation of any law: 6216.7. REVOCATION. The City License Officer may revoke any business license when the holder has violated any of the conditions of said license, or has violated or permitted to be violated any law or laws of the United States or the State, or any ordinance applicable to the premises where the business covered by said license is conducted, or in connection with said business. Further, a license may be revoked pursuant to the same grounds specified in Section 6216.6 for denial of issuance of a license. Business license revocations are appealable to the City Council, but any appeal is first heard by the Business License Review Board; an advisory body to the City Council on business license matters. The Board's findings and recommendation are then transmitted to the City Council, which considers the appeal at a public hearing. In this case, Best Health Center violated several provisions of the City's Massage Therapist Regulations, which were corrected, but it continues to operate in violation of the requirement that massage therapy activities be purely incidental and secondary to the established business. DISCUSSION Best Health Center was issued a business license for an acupuncturist's office at 25 N. Santa Anita Avenue, #C on January 23, 2006, and the Police Department has issued two massage therapist identification cards for this address. The business license for Best Health Center was revoked on May 20, 2009. The owner of Best Health Center appealed the revocation on May 26, 2009. The Business License Review Board met on June 3, 2009 and voted 3 -0 to recommend to the City Council that the revocation be upheld. The Board's decision was primarily based on a finding that massage therapy activities are not purely incidental and secondary to the established business. The revocation request by the Police Department was based primarily on the continued violations of the purely incidental and secondary requirement of Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6418.3 that were noted during multiple inspections. The Police Department reported that massage is not incidental or secondary to this business because on multiple inspections, the acupuncturist was not present; however, massage services were available. The Officer was told that the acupuncturist was available only by appointment; yet, massage services were available on a walk -in basis. The Police Department concluded that massage is not purely incidental and secondary to the acupuncturist business. Business License Revocation Best Health Center 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C July 21, 2009 — Page 2 The inspection reports from the Police Department are attached as Exhibits 'D -1' through 'D-4' and the City's Massage Therapist Regulations are attached as Exhibit 'E'. Summaries of the inspection findings are as follows: July 1, 2008 — In addition to the violation of the 'incidental and secondary' requirement of AMC Section 6418.3, several violations of AMC Section 6418.19 were also observed; there were locks on the doors and handles of the treatment rooms in violation of Section 6418.19(Q), there were no signs posted with regard to Police inspections per Section 6418.19(S), nor was there a roster of employees per Section 6418.19(T) or any records of treatments as required by Section 6418.19(U). September 4, 2008 — A re- inspection of the facility noted that all previous violations had been corrected, except for the continued violation of the incidental and secondary requirement of Section 6418.3. However, the following new violations were noted: Hours of operation restriction per Section 6418.5, uniform /apparel requirements of Section 6418.19(C), building permit requirements per Section 6418.19(L), and bathroom facilities requirements per Section 6418.19(M). In addition, the Fire Prevention Bureau found several safety violations. November 25, 2008 — A re- inspection of the facility noted that all previous violations had been corrected. However, Code Services found a broken window, and violations of the building permit requirements for improvements and installation of certain bath equipment as required by Sections 6418.19(L) and (M). March 5, 2009 — Another re- inspection noted that all previous violations had been corrected. However, Code Services found a new violation of Section 6418.19(L) for the installation of a shower without permits from Building Services. Also, during this inspection, City staff was informed that the acupuncturist did not have any appointments for that afternoon and was not present, and the treatment records are not kept at this office. This is a violation of Section 6418.19(U). The Police Department also did an Internet check and found material that indicates that prostitution may be occurring at Best Health Center. A printout of this material is attached as Exhibit 'F'. Additionally, the acupuncturist, Chao Pang, has been accused before the Acupuncture Board of the State of California, and may be subject to disciplinary actions for violations of the State Business and Professions Code, and State Penal Code. A copy of this Accusation is attached as Exhibit 'G'. The accusations are that at three different businesses he owned or operated, individuals under his acupuncturist license worked as illegal massage technicians and solicited for prostitution in violation of local and state laws; that he aided and abetted violations by allowing his acupuncture Business License Revocation Best Health Center 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C July 21, 2009 — Page 3 license and businesses to be used as fronts for houses of prostitution; and that he failed to register, on forms prescribed by the Acupuncture Board, all of his places of practice with the Board. RECOMMENDATION The Business License Review Board recommends that the appeal be denied and the revocation of the business license for Best Health Center be upheld, and the Development Services Department recommends that Chao Pang not be permitted to do business in the City of Arcadia for five (5) years in accordance with Section 6418.24 of the City's Massage Therapist Regulations. If the City Council decides not to revoke the business license, staff recommends the following conditions: That the business shall be subject to review by the City Council. for five (5) years, and should any violation occur, it shall be brought directly to the City Council's attention so that the City Council may directly consider revocation of the business license in accordance with Section 6216.7 of the Arcadia Municipal Code; and 2. That the business must be in compliance with all provisions and regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, and all applicable State and federal laws. Approved: �����► -� Donald Penman, City Manager Exhibits: A Revocation Notice B Appeal Letter from Mr. Chao Pang (2pp) C Minutes of the June 3, 2009 BPLRB meeting D -1 July 1, 2008 Inspection Report D -2 September 4, 2008 Inspection Report (19pp) D -3 November 25, 2008 Inspection Report (7pp) D -4 March 5, 2009 Inspection Report (9pp) E Massage Therapist Regulations (16pp) F Internet Printout (8pp) G Accusation filed with the State Acupuncture Board (16pp) Business License Revocation Best Health Center 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C July 21, 2009 — Page 4 City of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Knickeberg Development Smices Director 240 West,Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (626) 574 -5414 May 20, 2009 Mr. Chao Pang Best Health Center 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C Arcadia, CA 91006 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SUBJECT: Revocation of Business License No. 046226 Dear Mr. Pang: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Business License No. 046226 for an acupuncturist's office located at 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C is being revoked. Said revocation is due to violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code that have been listed below: 1. 6418.11. Non compliance with the City of Arcadia Massage Identification Card and Business License requirements. 2. 6418.3. Massage therapy business activities shall be purely incidental and secondary to any established business You are to immediately cease the operation of your business within the City of Arcadia. Continuing to operate the business in the City without a license violates Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6211, which constitutes a misdemeanor. Per Arcadia Municipal Code Section 6216.8 (attached) you may appeal this decision within five (5) days of the receipt of this notice. Said appeal must be made in writing and delivered to the undersigned. If you have any questions, please contact me at (626) 574 -5430 or at svergel @ci.arcadia.ca.us. Sincerely, Silva Vergel Business License Officer Enclosures C: Chao Pang, 745 E. Valley Bl., #226, San Gabriel, CA 91776 J A C Window Co., (property owner) Detective Bonomo, Police Dept. Exhibit `A' May 26, 2009 Chao Pang Best Health Center 25 N. Santa Anita Ave. #C Arcadia, CA 91006 Silva Vergel Business License Officer 240 West Huntington Drive P. O. Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91006 -6021 Dear Silva Vergel: I am the acupuncturist of Best Health Center located at 25 N. Santa Anna Ave. #C, Arcadia, CA 91006. After I got the letter from the city hall on 05/22/2009, 1 am surprised and not understand. I didn't violate the two regulations mentioned in your letter. It is not right for the city hall to revoke my business license just base on the two regulations. Therefore I am lodging the appeal. 1. I applied for the business license for my clinic center on January 2006. The business license was approved. The license number is 046226.1 renewed the license every year. 2. Since the clinic center opened for business, during the passing four years, we have complied with the all regulations of the city, and obtained all necessary formalities. 3. My wife and another assistant went to city hall and police department for applying for massage licenses, and they got licenses and renewed the license every year. 4. The main business of the clinic center is for curing patients. I work for five to seven days every week. My patients come from nearby cities, some of them come from remote area. 5. The clinic hires two assistants. According to the requirement of the city, I submitted their names, copies of their massage licenses and their working schedule sheet to the city. Exhibit'B' 6. The clinic center has received inspection of the city, police department and fire department for many times, all aspect of the clinic is qualified. 7. On 12119/2008, official of labor department came to my clinic for inspection, and the official required us to file tax (W -9) and buy worker's insurance. I did that on the same day. 8. IRS also came to my clinic for inspection. They didn't find any problem, since we filed tax return every year. 9. For this year's renew, we did that and paid the money already. The police department also issued the new massage licenses to the two assistants. In summary, my clinic has done everything required by the city, we didn't violate any regulation. Therefore I request to hold a hearing for further investigation and let us to continue run our business. Sincerely, Chao Pang LAC MINUTES BUSINESS LICENSE REVIEW BOARD •w''` Wednesday, June 3, 2009,11:00 p.m. Development Services Conference Room ROLL CALL: Present: Deputy Fire Chief Dave Haney, Arcadia Fire Department Mr. Dave Thompson, Public Works Services Department Absent: Mr. Hue Quach, Administrative Services Department Also Attending: Detective John Bonomo Business License Officer Silver Vergel Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone 1. REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE NO. 046226 Best Health Center 25 North Santa Anita Avenue, #C Business Owner /Appellant: Chao Pang REQUEST: Appeal of the revocation of Business License for violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code listed below: A. 6418.11. Non - compliance with the City of Arcadia Massage Identification Card and Business License requirements. B. 6418.3. Massage therapy business activities shall be purely incidental and secondary to any established business. The Staff Report was presented by Business License Officer, Silva Vergel: Detective John Bonomo stated that since July 1, 2008, City staff has conducted six inspections at Best Health Center and as a result, several violations of the Arcadia Municipal Code were identified. Although these violations were corrected, it was noted that no acupuncturist was on site during these inspections. Further, it appeared that the business was operating as a full time massage parlor contrary to municipal code regulations which requires that massage business must be incidental to main business, acupuncture. Detective Bonomo said that during an inspection on March 5, 2009, Ms. Chen, an employee of Best Health Center, told him that acupuncture was offered by appointment only. In response to reports of prostitution on site, an inspection was conducted in November 25, 2009 resulting in several arrests and fines and the business was shut down. The public hearing was opened. Neither the business owner, Mr. Chao Pang, nor a representative was present. Without objection the public hearing was closed. MOTION: It was moved by Deputy Chief Haney, seconded by Mr. Thompson to deny the appeal. ROLL CALL: AYES: Haney and Thompson NOES: None Adjourned 11:40 a.m. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DMSION REPRESENTATIVES: Silva Vergel and Billie Tone Exhibit `C' OS - MEMORANDUM Police Department DATE: July 1, 2008 TO: Detective John Bonomo FROM: Reserve officer Jack Ors-well RE: Summary of Massage Therapist BWWess Inspections On July 1, 2008, Mike Daleo and I conducted unannounced inspecW'M of six businesses offering massage therapy services, to deteapirie if isi t usinesse e complying with the regulations of the Arcadia Municipal G6d Dut���� ` inspeC ns, we were accompanied by Jo Coles, Cindy Noran and DDarf�itl Shigo. €the Los Angeles County Unity Coalition. After entering el business, dye identifd ourselves and asked to see the owner or manager. We ex,$ilned to the b isiness� ner or manager the purpose of the inspection was to deterrrtine if the.,business wa ' tt compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code (AMC). Vie had p , outs of 4A C 6418.19 (Operations) which identify 21 specific items w1uc11 acre requied for busresses offering or providing massage therapy services. The follo,04 is.,a st m "any of 0 t9a findings: 4) Best health Center — 25 North Santa Anita Avenue, $,Ni e'C. We spoke with Jieman Wu, who is a licensed massage therapy' Ms *'has a current Massage Therapist Identification Card; which she presented. ±hen asked. An inspection of the facility found the doors on the treatment roomm -had locks on the door handles [6418.19 (Q)]; the business did net post the noe as required by AMC 6418.19 (S); the business does.not maintains roster of dill massage therapists and employees [6418q:l (T)]; and4t" a business�does not maintain records of treatment as required by Afi-MC 641 g: � 9 •,(Lb. lkhs:. wi ti was given a copy of AMC 6418.19 (Operatioias)_Mth the yj'& ci�rde and she stated she would give the copy to the owner a the business in order: to make the necessary corrections. Ms. Wu was that massage se emA� es could not be performed after 9pm, as the posted office hours indicated the office. will open until l Opm. Ms. Wu was told that a re- 7 inspection of the business 'would be conducted in about another month or two. If you should have any questions, please contact me. Jack Orswell #2237 This report has been redacted to present only the information Exhibit 'D -1' relevant to Best Health Center, 25 N Santa Anita Avenue, #C. I ll. REPORTING PARTY O VICTIM O OWNER O R100 SUBJECT O Driver's License # Drivers License M Last Name w v First Name Middle Sex Race r9- Sex Buthdate (Mo/Day/Year) Residence Address City State , Zip Code Business Address or School Attended City Res # Cell # Business Address or School Attended �s � City 4 State Zip Code 00 Bus b26- 57 4 -7 10 4; 11. REPORTING PARTY O VICTIM O OWNER O R/0 ❑ SUBJECT 7[3 Driver's License # Last Name First Name Middle Race Sex Birthdate (Mo/Day/Year) Residence Address City State Zip Code A.L,.,� C Res # Cell # Business Address or School Attended City State Zip Code Total Value: Bus # III. VEHICLE INFORMATION Year, Make, Model, Style, Color, License Plate w/Stats Suspect Vehicle ❑ Victim Vehicle ❑ Other Involved Vehicle ❑ IV. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Artide/Make Model Number Serial Number Color Lost/Stolen/Damaged/Found Value 1. 2. 3. a . A.L,.,� C 5. ❑ Property Continuation Page Total Value: Officer and ID Ii Date Supervisor and 1 1' rw PUTO P 330 to Page V 01 1 ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT For Agency Use Only INCIDENT. REPORT Case No. .j • 6 9 - (f��f5 1. TYPE, LOCATION AND TIME OF INCIDENT ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT INCIDENT REPORT - NARRATIVE For Agency use only Case No. I - Officer and ID N Date Supervisor and ID N Date Page of Date Q Name of Business Responsible Person ..J ltEm ft W Address ZS P 5*1JM= A- A) kTV� C x 2 Telephone Number 6418.19. OPERATIONS. S - 7/ l U� 1 CA (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shal at all times have in his or her possession the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and/or operator shall at all times have in his or her possession the Owner /Operator Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each massage therapist shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to uniforms worn in medical offices, and: shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron "s specified anatomical areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed, any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi - nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (I) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of each Massage Therapist Identification Card, Owner /Operator Identification Card and Business License, shall be deemed to consent to the inspection of the business premises by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (l) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing 1 ights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Bath Facilities. A minimum of one (1) toilet and one (1) separate washbasin shall be provided for patrons. Soap or detergent and hot running water shall be provided to patrons and employees at all times and shall be located within close proximity to the area devoted to the performance of massage therapy services. A permanently installed soap dispenser, filled with soap, and a single service towel dispenser shall be provided at c 1 l • the restroom hand wash sink. No bar soap may be used. A trash receptacle shall be provided in each toilet room, (N) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (0) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (P) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 " "). Two - inch (2 " ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4) may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (Q) Doors. No massage therapy services shall be given within any room or enclosure that is fitted with a door capable of being locked. The business premises" exterior doors and any doors separating the waiting or reception area from the remainder of the premises shall remain unlocked during business hours. (R) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minimum length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (S) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible to. arty person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: IN COOPERATION WITH THE ARCADIA POLICE: DEPARTMENT OUR DOORS ARE TO REMAIN UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION 70 INSURE OUR PROFESSIONALISM. (T) Roster of Employees. The business owoe' r and /or operator shall maintain a register of all massage therapists and employees, showing the.name, nicknaixies and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight,: color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2 ) years following termination. The busmi ess owner and/or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately For inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (U) Records of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 6418.19 -s 64 W.19. UPERA'11UN S. ARTI _C(.S VI BAINUSES, PROFESSIONS, TRAQES RD- QCCUPATIONS 7�1 PART 1 ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES �2< Q ! ;A4A U IT Page 1 of 2 to K 'i l 6418.19. OPERATIONS. r (A) Identification Cards. Each massage f1hempist shall fit all times have in his or her possessio the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo Identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and /or operator shall at all times have in his or her possession the Owner /Operator Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo Identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each massage therapist shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division In an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms; -similar to uniforms wom in medical offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, butt6oks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing Instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to'all patrons "clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the, pe0on's spee fled inatomicaf areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the cowering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen sh#jf be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall ee provided bi'*e storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist Operating Under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or AM, buted, any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi -nudity or empiors language in the "text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron float any otherservices are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (1) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of" c Massage Therapist Identification Card, Owner /Operator Identification Card and Business License, shall be deemed to consent to the Inspection of the business premises by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that &jv the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. V OW (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb �\ and shall be activated at all times while a patron Is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be Installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such Installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Bath Facilities. A minimum of one (1) toilet and one (1) separate washbasin shall be provided for patrons. Soap or detergent and hot running water shall be provided to patrons and employees at all times and shall be located within close proximity to the area devoted to the performance of massage therapy services. A permanently Installed soap dispenser, filled with soap, and a single service towel dispenser shall be provided at the restroom hand wash sink. No bar soap may be used. A trash receptacle shall be provided In each toilet room. 6q4 '4 Ve- httt)://municii)alcodes.lexisne,xls.com/codes/acadia/ httn:// municii)alcodes .lexisnexis.com/codes /acadia/ DATA/TITLE06/PART 1 ENTERT... 6/9/2008 04 W 19. UYLKA l TUNS. Page 2 of 2 (N) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (0) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (P) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 "). Two -inch (2 ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4') may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business ises. �� Q) s. No massage therapy services shall be given within any room or enclosure that is fitted a door capable of being locked. The business premises' exterior doors and any doors separating the waiting or reception area from the remainder of the premises shall remain S 0 unlocked during business hours. (R) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minimum length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those ted. otices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business tY wh re massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible to any person entering the mises and in each massage room or enclosure: IN COOPERATION WITH THE ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR DOORS ARE TO REMAIN UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION TO INSURE OUR PROFESSIONALISM. oster of Employees. The business owner and /or operator shall maintain a register of all me sage therapists and employees, showing the name, nicknames and aliases used by the ssage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if any, and duties of each employee. The: above information conceming each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained, at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) years following termination. The business owner and /or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately for inspection by the City regulatory officials n demand at all reasonable times. (U) ecords of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine If the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to Inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 6418.19 «devious I next >? http:// thunicipalcodes .lexisnexis.comleodeslarcadial DATAITITLE061PART_1_ENTERT... 6/9/2008 iiY WH�a ;_JT.- _tiM 4►''.Y•f_ _ - "�- t s 'ti il• �- .:iN•x.♦ r }1F� . A!R .. _M.i.. 4 fly � -. W0753 Chen Xiu 25 N. Santa Anita #C 4/22/2007 r -08 LIT08015 Chen Xiu iu 25 N. Santa Anita #C 2/512008 Jan-09 MT08039 Li Gendi 25 N. Santa Anita #C 3/11/2008 Mar -09 W07132 Li Li 25 N. Santa Anita #C 12/21/2007 Dec-08 W0785 Liao Bi Tao 25 N. Santa Anita #C 7/17/2007 Jul -08 W07114 Lu Man 25 N. Santa Anita #C 10/9/2007 Se p-08 MT06048 Situ Xiao 25 N. Santa Anita #C 5130/2006 Jul -07 MT0784 Situ Mao Lon , q 25 N_ Santa Anita #C 6/2612007 Jun -08 W0707 Sun Guizhon 25 N. Santa Anita #C 1/10/2007 Feb MT0749 Wang Wei 25 N. " Santa Anita #C 4/9/2007 r -08 MT06084 Wen . Lihua 25 N. Santa Anita #C 912612006 Oct -07 MT0709 Wu Jieman 25 N. Santa Anita #C 1/1012007 Feb-08 MT08016 MT0702 I Wu Wu Jiemin Sheng Ying 25 N. Santa Anita #C 25 N. Santa Anita #C 2/5/2008 1/4/2007 Jan -09 Feb-08 v ARCAQIA MR DI tAd 011iliENT FIRE -PRi VEN710N BUMU 830 SOUTH 13ALDMN ,AWNUE AR :AMA, CA 81 Dti'7 (628) 674-61b4' ( 44$ 810 FAX Date: Addddn s 0CC Yd [] No vbirltions noted("). Thank you for your 000peratbn wMh ft Aroadia Fire Department during your Fin and LMe Safety inspection. Your - ate Is dbected to the *W ohaoked bOW Tha e- Viotptloris Mul l' be gorr*Wd In order to ntaet nrinknum fin and . LNe 82tey Asquiremerrb. For 616 on of the hems noted; pbaee rafeMO the comr Mft section. FIRE PROM MN SYS.TAW t3wA* pp W* Ire exttngubhWa) — 906.2 Fire skll Wehe*) MOM - ti06.1 Fire e tehttgtlishsr(q mountblp tla401ratt - 90817 Fln sprt ter- 5 .year aafteation ragWnd— 901.5:1 Floe sprinkler avow maintenance erqukw — 901.8 Pira alarrruyatem mabttsnanoe tegitbled - 901,6 Hood and Duct — Are *Vlem seroibe *ClWr ad- 901.8 Hood and OW — sysieni Cleaning required-901.6 tI0V89MW N0VIOLAT!t7NS Fire raslstthre donetruetbn — 703.1 Fire asteniW teatM0 and MAIMenanee 7tI3 4 Improper aturage of oombudWe meterlsh - 315.2 No alorsps,allowsd In bofachnechanioWeled0losl rooms — 316.2.3 imOmW use of-oambuatible decorsttw material - 807 Combuatibb vaWatbn - 3041:2 13AMW 1R3'�Y7MRElNBNTB Address numbers —x05;1 Knaot eox ngWrad - s06.1 36me compressed gas oyNnders, tanh, eontalnen — 3003.6 WC17i'/CAL HAZAR0S I mlpmmW use of alp cords or extenaion oords — 008.5 IptptOy ►trt�iofmt�i+pfuQoutiMa- �06.4 Y " __` Electrical panel mom — 805.3 C ones eleot+lo:l hazard — 805 0CIT lIAEJt am NA n — 1928.3 AisNimtidruotlon - 1074ri tadtdoon- ;ofserateci+= 1908.1. Exk dber bpidng does - 1008.1.6.3 Corltdor obstntatlon - t 028.3 StainNay abstructbn - 1020,3 WOO 01urnbratlon - 1011.2 Exit ovrA mquind - two or more 908 - 1011.1 Ernerpenor4ablarp exit Ngbting — 1027.0 . 9PRML BARDS 17 M , Parml! rigulNd — J►pp 1 106.1 Ex toms her W — App 1 110.1 YoU are hereby nodlied to could tha tem ch.w*ed above within 44.d alys', or..- to A rye - inspection will be held on or hits date at nth char". A reinspenlidn fee me bi apeegoo err billed by the City of Amodio 4 cotarolctions are not m priorto,le re�lnspsotlon and a eubsequetrt- inasaticn Is i have read thisstatement an d understand that a fee maybe - charW- if corrections are not made in a Maly manner and addttlonai m- Inspections are necessary. Contact Person Signature: {, A%A ice _ Date: Sc .,g = s Inspector's Name: ID#: le, -:p Company: ,,c R 0 Captain's IN.' FPB 101 rU4,140 Wo Development Services Department Jason KrucImberg Derclapnicnt Scrricu Dincctm- 240 west Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066.6021 (626) 5745414 (626) 447.8309 Fax 09 -- q5�5 Chao Pang Best Health Center 25 North Santa Anita Avenue Arcadia, Ca 91006 Dear Business Owner: It has been noted that the business located at 25 North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, CA may be maintained in violation of the following Arcadia Municipal Code, Sections: 64183 Permissible Massage Therapy Business Activities 6418.5 Hours of Operation 6418.19 Provide roster of employees 6418.19C Clothing shall be similar to uniforms worn in medical offices. 641819L Building Permits shall be installed under permit and Installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia 6418.19M One permanently installed soap dispenser and one single service towel dispenser shall be provided at the restroom hand wash sink 9405.1 Any condition in violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code To comply with the code you should provide our office with a floor plan of the business indicating which activities are performed in each room of the business. Please provide us with a copy of your roster of all employees or independent contractors along with copies of their Massage Therapist ID card. Be aware of the massage therapist operating hours. Your business card says you are open until 10:00 p.m. and there should be no massage activities after 9:00 p.m. Employees should be dressed in attire similar to uniforms worn in medical offices. Provide permanent installed soap dispenser and towel dispensers in restroom. Provide building permits for the walls dividing each space, along with sinks, and showers located on the premises. Remove flashing open sign. Correct all items by September 22, 2008. Failure to comply will result in further action from this office. Chao Pang -2- September 8, 2008 If you cannot provide the permits for the construction in your units you may remove the unpermitted work or apply for a permit with Building Services and they may be contacted at (626) 574 -5416. Should you have any other questions or concerns regarding this matter please contact me at (626) 574 -5436 (office), (626) 689-6266 (cell Phone) or tmoo el.areadla.ea.us City Hall is closed on alternate Fridays and will be closed on Friday, September 12, 2008. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Moore -Korse Code Services Officer V Ca INSPECTION CHECKLIST Business Name f Business Address a S . A-A Jt. /q fk Business Hours � U 5 H i i) N Bus. Phone Number: Bus. Hours After Hours Contact: Name 0 r t h S o. ,n t VI 4. a n Phone Number: h Bus. Hours S '. After Hours fy t r 7( Business License Number C� 4 L 21 (,. e t (w" e East -West Street Mservatiens Item Observation comment comment Item Observation comment comment Massage therapy Sanitary facilities toilets ✓ Part of business Yedno wash basins License ted Yes/no his showers Slane/Banners p ertnitted , i &&N I bath tub r— Window sign Ka e < 30% trash can Faclity Gen'l Mntnce maintained towels clean so ds nsr orderly Lighting ade uate 6 Interior Doors lockable FurniftWe ui ment Exterior Doors locked Massaite Table height Re to Area Doors locked width pad Ventilation workinit Bed Yedno Linens clean n.- G� aw tpr A- r TMs, ae' .r e e ; � s Fr i r r f ",0 3 , J }N R F, 5 ON i J . x `t .. Vp "_. t f ",0 3 , J }N R F, 5 ON i _ s* ,, Foist 0 `l�"IS4 �� [� � �� ` � 1 �� �� - y � � _ � � � �� � }� ��. � � � � � � � _ '� � [� � �� ` � © � / � � � � \ - y � . » s . .� :� w � »y» . . —,� : aa�a.»w� . : . . � � \ y . � }� _ - . � = « . : _- -� 2 , -© - -- � ƒ��. 6, � t -,-( 54 -<-, 12/09/08 08 -4745 On 11/25/08 at 2030 hrs, Officer Orsweli and I, along with representatives from Arcadia Fire Department and Arcadia Code Enforcement inspected Best Health Center, 25 N. Santa Anita, Unit C, and spoke with Massage Therapist Wu, Jie Min. John Lo, Arcadia Police Department Volunteer in Patrol was used as a transistor. Wu had a valid license. This was a follow up inspection from 9/04/08. Our purpose was to check to see if the previous violations had been corrected. We found that all our previous violations had been corrected. See attachment from Arcadia Police Department. A copy was given to Wu to give to owner, Pang, Chao. Jill Perumean, Arcadia Fire Department, ,inspected the location and found all previous violations corrected. A copy was given to Wu to:.give to owner, Pang, Chao. Terry Moore- Korse, Arcadia Code Enfonement and found the following violations: provide permanent tows dispenser, provide permanent soap dispenser, provide building permits for wells, showers and sinks, provide building permits, repair broken window -new violation. A notice will be mailed to Pang, Chao, owner, indicathngl that all violations roust be corrected by 12/22/08. Reports from Arcadia Fire and Code Enforcement are attached. Exhibit `D -3' ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report I. Type, Location, and Time of Incident For Agency Use Only se ! o. 6(— j Type of Incident Middle C 71 E. C.Yl.'D IN�'ri�C.� Location of 6ccurrence Uh�l� r)c AN Premise Occurred on /or Between and b Date i f Day iv Time 30 Date and Time Reported ' l a d �p3u State -Zip Code _ Sest/RD x ' Date Day Time Last Name First Name Middle Race Sex Birthdate (Mo /Day/Year) Residence Address Cfty: State, - Zip Code Res 0 Call # Business Address or School Attended City State -Zip Code _ Bus # III. Vehicle Information I Year, "Make, "Model, Style, Color, License Plate w /State SuspectVehTcle'j j Victim Vehicle, (j Other InvolVed Vehicle ( ) Officer and ID # A . (�Qs } 07 2,13 S IV. Property Description Supervisor and ID # 0. MAPUTO #330 - Article /Make Model-Number Serial Number Color Lost/Stolen /Demaged/Found Value 1 _ 2. 3, C 4, 5. ❑ Property Continuation Page Total Value: Officer and ID # A . (�Qs } 07 2,13 S Date alog log Supervisor and ID # 0. MAPUTO #330 lo c4 o II. Recortina Party r 1 Victim r 1 Owner r 1 RIO I I 13ublec r 1 Driver's License # ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT incident Report— Narrative For Agency Use Only & Officer and ID # Date Supervisor and ID # Date A:� 0 ,-Lns 11� f4 Date t t Z N ame of Business 4� C6A&Z Responsible Person J 16-y W ( -k Address S x :I � ,� yN, � ,���( Telephone Number 63� - 7 1o( 6418.19.OPERATIONS. ( Mt) V t OU `rtOKb (7'4(- Pig;a)1 / N� R�trtaxj gA/v$ (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shall at all times have in his or her possession the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and/or operator shall at all times have in his or her possession the Owner /Operator Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each massage therapist shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to uniforms worn in medical offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron "s specified anatomical areas, including.the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi - nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (I) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of each Massage Therapist Identification Card, Owner /Operator Identification Card and Business License, shall be deemed to consent to the inspection of the business premises by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shalt be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Bath Facilities. A minimum of one (1) toilet and one (1) separate washbasin shall be provided for patrons. Soap or detergent and hot running water shall be provided to patrons and employees at all times and shall be located within close proximity to the area devoted to the performance of massage therapy services. A permanently installed soap dispenser, filled with soap, and a single service towel dispenser shall be provided at 1 the restroom hand wash sink. No bar soap may be used. A trash receptacle shall be provided in each toilet room. (N) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (0) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (P) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 Two -inch (2 " ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4') may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (Q) Doors. No massage therapy services shall be given within any room or enclosure that is fitted with a door capable of being locked. The business premises" exterior doors and any doors separating the waiting or reception area from the remainder of the premises shall remain unlocked during business hours. (R) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minimum length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (S) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily, visible to, any person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: IN COOPERATION WITH THE ARCAD!IA POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR DOORS ARE TO REMAIN % UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION TO INSURE OUR PROFESSIONALISM. (T) Roster of Employees. The business owner:and/or operator shall maintain a register of all massage therapists and employees, showing themame, nicknames and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if"any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) . years following termination. The business owner and/or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately For inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (U) Records of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be - completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 6418.19 SA Date: > F!_ ,?T 'W . ofd ,;? Ai '4 ( :sue . T.e X 25 Business Address OCCYd (l No violations noted (NVN). Inspection. ARCADIA FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 630 SOUTH BALDWIN AVENUE ARCADIA, CA 91007 (626) 574 -5104 .(826) 445 -1819 FAX Thank you for your 000psmilon aeth the Arcata Fire Department during your Fire and Lie Safely 13. Your stlantlon is directed to the items chocked beow. These - violations must be eomacted in order to mwt minimum Fire and LUa solely Requirements. For dardicabon of the items noted, please refer to the aonxnents section, FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS ® service portable Are extinguisher(s) - g06.2 Fro a dinguishor(s) requi ed - 906.1 Fire sodUgutoher(s) mounting rbgt*W - 1108.7 Fire sprinkler- 5 year osrti6adon required - 901.8.1 Fire sprinkler system mainbanancs required - 901.6 Fire alarm syskim maintenance mquha W - 901.8 Hood and Dud - Are system service recoed - 001.8 ❑ Hood and Duct - system deankrg a+equlmd - 901.8 HOUSEKEEPING VIOLATIONS ❑ Fire resistive co - 7031 Fire assembly Dating and mgkftmnoe - 703.4 improper storage of ccmbu$OW materials - 315.2 No sorage allowed in boalarlmechonoaVeloWlesi rooms - 315.2.3 ❑ Improper use of combustible decorative material - 807 ❑ Combue" vegetation - 304.12 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ❑ Address r anbons - 605.1 ❑ Knox Box "paired - 506.1 ❑ secure 70""d gas cylinders, tanks, oontainers - 3003.5 ELECTRICAL HAZARDS Impropler use of zip cords o extensor owds - 805.5 Improper use of mir6*9 outlets -805.4 - EleatrW panel access - 605.3 Correct ebctrknd hezord - 606.1 E)CIT REQUIREMENTS EA obdrudon - 1028.3 Aisie.abstruction - 1014.4 Exit doors - operaron - 1006.1.8 Ext door k ddng dwloss -1008. t.8.3 Corridor obsWetion - 1028.3 stairway obst udion - 1028.3 Exit sign illumination - 1011.2 Exit Wo required - two or more exits - 1011.1 Enorplency backup ad lighting - 1027.5 - SPECIAL HAZARDS ❑ Permit,requlred -App 1 105.1 ❑ Extreme hazard - App 1110 1 E� t1her hazards - i5 , !' G7 e 5- ---- -e I bave lead this statement and understand that a tee may be charged Kcc6rractlons are not made in a timely manner and addltlonal lip- inspections are necessary. Contact Person Signature: , Nn +++ Date: — c Inspector's Name: CZR4,0 ID #; Company: rg_ Captain's ID#: FPB 101 You are hereby notMed to correct the items checked above within 14 clays, or prior -to A re- inspection will be held On Or this date -at no charge. A rain"gdon tee 140 b assessed and billed by the City of Arcadia if corrections are not made prior to this re- inspection and a- subsequent re4nspection is necessary. Y MEMORANDUM Development Services Departhnent DATE: December 2, 2008 TO: Mike Daleo FROM: Terry Moore -Korse SUBJECT: Second inspection on November 25, 2008 of premises located at 25 N Santa Anita, Arcadia, Ca On November 25, 2008, ,1 inspected the subject btisiness to verify compliance of the Notice of Violation issued on September 15, 2008 TThd;inspection found the following items have been corrected at the site: Removed moving lighted open sign Uniforms should similar to those worn in medical offices. The following items still need to be complied with Provide permanent towel dispenser Provide permanent soap dispenser Provide building permits for walls, showers, and sinks Provide Building permits. Repair broken window — new violation A second letter will be sent out with the incomplete item with a correction date of December 22, 2008. 03/10/09 08 -4545 On 03105/09, at 1800hrs, Officer Orswell and I, along with representatives from Arcadia Fire Department and Arcadia Code Enforcement inspected Best Health Center, 25 N. Santa Anita, Unit C, and spoke with Massage Chen, Xiuqin. John Lo, Arcadia Police Department Volunteer in Patrol was used as a translator. Chen had a valid license (MT 08115). This was a follow up inspection from 11/25/08. Our purpose was to check to see if the previous violations had been corrected. We found that all our previous violations had been corrected. Jill Perumean, Arcadia Fire Department, inspected the location and found all previous violations corrected. Terry Moore- Korse, Arcadia Code Enforcement found the following violation on 02/11/09 and on 03/10/09: No permit for shower, shower needs to be removed and plumbing needs to be capped off in wall. A notice will be mailed to Pang, Chao, owner, indicating that this violation must be corrected. Reports from Code Enforcement are attached. Additional Information Chen started work at 1200 hrs this date. Dr. Chao Pang, Acupuncturist, was not present. Chen said the Dr did not have any patients today from 1200hrs to 1600 hrs. Chen said she did one massage from 1200 hrs to 1820 hrs today. The Dr keeps all records of treatment and they are not at this office for review. Chen said that if she gets a call for the Dr, she will refer the patient to the Dr. Chen thought the Dr was in at 1000 hrs because he had an appointment. Massage Therapy is offered Monday through Saturday and sometimes on Sunday,. 1000 hrs to 2100 hrs. Chen stated that massage therapy is only 20% of their business. Acupuncture is offered at $60 per hr and massage therapy at $50 per hr. Exhibit `D-4' ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT Incident Report 1. Type, Location, and Time of Incident For Agency Use Only Cam Type of Incident Middle �t� Sex Location of Occurrence Ut f lr G Premise Occurred on /or Date Day Time �(,r,. A(r b Between and d3 k jm t � Date and Time Reported Seal/R Date Day Time 11. Reporting Party [ ] Victim [ J Owner [ ] RIO [ j Subject (] Driver's License # Last Name First Name Middle Race Sex Birthdate Mo /Day/Year) G 1 U& r.'J y Residence Address City State Zip Code Res # Cell # siness Address or School Attended l City State Zip Code R �-G N � Bus # 4 24 II. Reporting Party [ J Victim [ J Owner [ ] RIO [ ] Subject [ ] Drivers License # Last Name First Name Middle Race Sex Birthdate (Mo /Day /Year) Residence Address City State Zip Code Res # Call # Business Address or School Attended City State Zip Code Bus # 111. Vehicle Information Year, Make, Model, Styie, Color, License Plate w /State Suspect Vehicle [ ] Victim Vehicle [ ] Other Involved Vehicle [ j Officer d ID # Date Supervisor and ID # Date kA- . �� ,3 s 1 13 lrotbi IV. Property Description Article /Make Model Number Serial Number Color Lost/Stolen /Damaged /Found Value 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. M Property Continuation Page Total Value: Officer d ID # Date Supervisor and ID # Date kA- . �� ,3 s 1 13 lrotbi ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT In cident Report — Narrative For Agency Use Only ye 0 t., cS Sa: A � Officer and ID # ` , _` rD 44 2t35" 03 Supervisor � toy Page -- of Date Name of Business ?95 fkALrW aai2 Responsible Person %(J Qj W G WW Address N(� 1�}NIT 4 L x Telephone Number 6418.19. OPERATIONS. t9(16_ N"D 00r (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shall at all times have in his or her possession the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and/or operator shall at all times have in his or her possession the Owner /Operator Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each massage therapist shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to unifoms worn in medical. offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks; anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist4ball provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting' and sterilizing instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron "s specified anatprnieal areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and ;laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of.clean and. soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under 'this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed,.any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi -nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other - classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (I) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of each Massage Therapist Identification Card, Owner /Operator Identification Card and Business License, shall be deemed to consent to the inspection of the business premises by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. - (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Bath Facilities. A minimum of one (1) toilet and one (1) separate washbasin shall be provided for patrons. Soap or detergent and hot running water shall be provided to patrons and employees at all times and shall be located within close proximity to the area devoted to the performance of massage therapy services. A permanently installed soap dispenser, filled with soap, and a single service towel dispenser shall be provided at f 6 the restroom hand wash sink. No bar soap may be used. A trash receptacle shall be provided in each toilet room. (N) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (0) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (P) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 Two -inch (2 " ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4') may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (Q) Doors. No massage therapy services shall be given within any room or enclosure that is fitted with a door capable of being locked. The business premises" exterior doors and any doors separating the waiting or reception area from the remainder of the premises shall remain unlocked during business hours. (R) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minimum length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (S) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible too any person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: IN COOPERATION WITH THE ARCAD A POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR DOORS ARE TO REMAIN UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION. TO INSURE OUR PROFESSIONALISM. (T) Roster of Employees. The business owner and/or operator shall maintain a register of all massage therapists and employees, showing the naive, nicknames and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination,' if any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be: maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) years following termination. The business owner and/or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately For inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (U) Records of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 6418.19 I Massage Therapy Bu Activities Primary Business .OYAcupuncture ❑ Day Salon or Spa ❑ Physical Therapist j! I Lt GZ i N GRek.) nx00u- P12CsMt4-(�p� ❑ Medical Office ❑ Chiropractor ❑ Other Name of Medical Professional or Business Owner Ao nA16 Present at time of inspection? ❑ Yes Telephone Number (010 l 1 2J S 10 0 PM No Scheduled Hours at Location t+& t he I 0 IA-A lA IPT Primary Business ❑ Monday ❑ Tuesday `� v� ❑ Wednesday ❑ Thursday ❑ Friday ❑ Saturday ❑ Sunday Massage Therapy '` , X1 UCAUl ►M�% A4J A FT Fvbt �1)4 – S �-C— w I c k, o�� Ppr ray; To fit. I+ 1J 6 P UO7` Percentage of Income Sources Primary Business 0 Massage Therapy a Hourly Rate Primary Business 4 ,0 =� 1 Massage Therapy. Massage Therapists Present at the time of the Inspection Name MT ID X a ow c." 0-r oe) I I 5 (I e - a�w bwat Id unit) MEMORANDUM Development Services Department DATE: March 10, 2009 TO: Mike Daleo FROM: Terry Moore -Korse SUBJECT: Inspection on March 10; 2009 of premises located at 25 N. Santa Anita, #C, Arcadia., Ira On March 5, 2009 I inspected the subject business. I found the following items that need to be corrected. No permit for shower. Shower needs to be removed and plumbing needs to be capped off in wall. C-m t - � City of Arcadia Development Services Department Jason Kruckcbcrg Demlopuin't Scyriccr Dim m- February 11, 2009 Chao Pang Business Owner Best Health Center 745 Eat Valley Blvd„ #226 San Gabriel, Ca 91776 Subject Property: 25 N. Santa Anita, Unit C, Arcadia, CA Dear Business Owner: During an inspection on February 10, 2009 it was noted that the business located at the subject property is maintained in violation of the following Arcadia Municipal Code, Sections: 9405.1 Any condition in violation of the Arcadia Municipal Code. 9405.4 Structure not constructed in compliance with the Arcadia Municipal Code. 9403(x) Failure to comply with enforcement order. To comply with the code you shall: Provide building permit for the shower located on the premises. if you do not possess permits for the shower than they must be removed and the plumbing must be capped off in the walls or you may contact Planning and Building Services to legalize the unpermitted work. 240 West Huntington Dnve post Office Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066.6021 (626)574.5414 (626) 447 -3309 Fax if any other parts of Ole premises have been altered without first obtaining permits then you shall return the property back to its original condition or apply for approvals with Planning and Building Services. Building Services may be contacted at (626) 574 -5416. You may reach Planning Services at (626) 574 -5423. Correct all items by March 5, 2009. Failure to comply in the time given will result in further action from this office. Chao Pang -2 February 11, 2009 Best Health Center Should you have any other questions or concerns regarding this matter please contact me at (626) 574 -5436 (office), (626) 688 -6266 (cell phone) or tmooreCa cLareadia- ca.us City Hall is closed on alternate Fridays and will be closed on Friday, February 13, 2009 and on President's day Monday. February 16, 2009. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Moore -Korse Code Services Officer c: Building Services Business License Services Planning Services Police Department Article VI, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 8 — Massage Therapist Regulations 6418. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The City of Arcadia is authorized, by virtue of the State Constitution and Section 51031 of the Government Code, to regulate massage therapists by imposing reasonable standards relative to their skill and experience, and to regulate owners and operators of massage therapy businesses to ensure the safety of clients receiving massage therapy. The City Council finds and determines that licensing standards pertaining to massage therapy business activities are necessary to protect the public health and safety and the personal safety of massage therapists. The City Council further finds that the public health and safety are best served by the adoption of an ordinance providing for regulation of massage therapy business activities in a manner that is consistent throughout the City of Arcadia. The establishment of reasonable standards for issuance of a license and restrictions on massage therapy business activities would serve to reduce the risk of illegal activities. There is a significant risk of injury to massage clients by improperly trained and /or uneducated massage therapists and this Division provides reasonable safeguards against injury and economic loss. 6418.1. DEFINITIONS. "Acupressure" shall mean the stimulation or sedation of specific meridian points and trigger points near the surface of the body by the use of pressure applied in order to prevent or modify perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, in the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body. "Applicant" means the individual seeking a permit pursuant to this Division. "Certified copy" shall mean a copy of a document that is certified by the issuer as being a true and accurate copy of the original document or a similar document bearing an original signature of the issuer. "Chief of Police" means the Chief of Police of the City of Arcadia, or his or her designated representative. "City regulatory officials" shall mean the City's Licensing Authority, Building and Planning Services, Code Services Officers, Fire Department and the Police Department. "Disqualifying conduct" means any of the following: (A) Pandering; (B) Keeping or residing in a house of ill -fame; (C) Keeping a house for the purpose of assignation or prostitution, or other disorderly house; (D) Prevailing upon a person to visit a place of illegal gambling or prostitution; (E) Lewd conduct; (F) Prostitution activities; 1 Exhibit `E' (G) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony; (H) Any felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (1) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (J) Any misdemeanor or felony offense which relates directly to the practice of massage therapy, whether as a massage therapy business owner or operator, or as a massage therapist; or (K) Any felony the commission of which occurred on the business premises where message therapy services are performed. "Employ" shall include, without limitation, contracting with independent contractors as well as hiring or employing persons. "Employee" shall include, without limitation, independent contractors and persons hired or employed by an operator or owner of a massage therapy business. "Health Department" means the Health Services Agency of the County of Los Angeles. "License" shall mean the license to operate a massage therapy business in the City of Arcadia. "Licensing Authority" shall mean the Business License Officer or the designated official responsible for issuing, revoking and otherwise administering the provisions of this Division. "Massage" or "massage therapy" shall mean any method of pressure on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, vibrating, or stimulating the external parts of, the human body with the hands or with the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appliance, with or without supplementary aids such as creams, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in the practice of massage, under such circumstances that it is reasonably expected that the person to whom the treatment is provided or some third person on his or her behalf will pay money or give any other consideration or any gratuity therefor. "Massage therapist" shall mean any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, performs or offers to perform a massage in a massage therapy business. "Massage therapy business" shall mean any establishment having a fixed place of business for the purpose of deriving income or compensation from massage therapy services. "Minor" means any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years. "Nudity" or "semi- nudity" shall mean any of the following: (A) The appearance or display of an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast; or (B) A state of undress which less than completely covers an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast. 2 "Operator" or `owner" means the individual(s) who are responsible for the management and /or supervision of a massage therapy business. Whenever the term owner or operator is used in this Division, it shall be deemed to include, without limitation, the manager of any massage therapy business. "Patron" shall mean any person who receives a massage in exchange for any form of consideration including, but not limited to, the payment of money. "Recognized school of massage" shall mean any school or institution of learning which teaches, through State certified instructors, the theory, ethics, practice, profession or work of massage, which school or instruction complies with California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and any and all successor statutes, and all regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and which requires a resident course of study before the student shall be furnished with a diploma or a certificate of graduation from such school or institution of learning following the successful completion of such course of study or learning; and shall further mean any similar school or institution of learning in another State of the United States which has standards and requirements equivalent to those of California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. "Specified anatomical area" shall mean human genitals, pubic region or a female breast. 6418.2. ACUPRESSURE. This Division shall also apply to the administration of acupressure. 6418.3. PERMISSIBLE MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, conduct, permit, or manage a business establishment having a fixed place of business for the sole and primary purpose of deriving income or compensation from massage therapy business activities. Massage therapy business activities shall be purely incidental and secondary to any established business. Massage therapists may operate at (a) an established medical office, including, without limitation, an office of an acupuncturist or a physical therapist; and (b) a day spa or salon. All such established businesses shall comply with all building and zoning regulations, the regulations of this Division, and all other applicable requirements of law. 6418.4. NUMBER OF LICENSES PERMITTED. Each medical office, including that of an acupuncturist, shall be limited to two (2) massage therapists at any given time. 6418.5. HOURS OF OPERATION. No massage therapist shall administer a massage in any established business between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The hours of operation must be displayed in a conspicuous public place within the established business. 3 6418.6. BUSINESS OWNER/OPERATOR RESPONSIBILITY. All business owners and /or operators shall be responsible for the conduct of all employees and independent contractors. Any act or omission of any employee or independent contractor constituting a violation of the provisions of this Division shall be deemed the act or omission of the business owner for purposes of determining whether the owner's license shall be revoked, suspended, denied or renewed. No business owner and /or operator shall employ any person, or allow any person, to conduct a massage or act as an independent contractor conducting massage who does not have a valid Massage Therapist Identification Card and Business License issued pursuant to this Division. No business owner or operator shall operate a business that provides massage therapy unless such owner and /or operator has a current Owner /Operator Identification Card, as provided in this Division. 6418.7. BUSINESS OWNER/OPERATOR IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIRED. Any person owning or operating a business that provides massage therapy shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Business Owner /Operator Identification Card. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact location of the business, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location. Operators shall provide a letter of verification from the owner of the business, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ the applicant; (B) Applicants shall also provide the following information: (1) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (2) Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (3) Driver's license number or identification number, (4) Social security number, (5) Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, (6) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (7) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct, 4 (8) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents; and (c) understands the duties of owners /operators of businesses that provide massage therapy as provided in this Division; (C) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (7) by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application; (D) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department; (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application; (F) The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee at the time of filing an application, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. 6418.8. MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIRED. Any person performing massage or massage therapy shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Massage Therapist Identification Card. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact business location at or from which the applicant will be working as a massage therapist, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location, and a letter of verification from the owner of the business, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ the applicant, and the following personal information concerning the applicant: (1) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (2) Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (3) Written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age, (4) Height, weight, color of hair and eyes, and gender, (5) Driver's license number or identification number, (6) Social security number, (7) The occupation and employment history of the applicant, including, without limitation, names, addresses and telephone numbers of all employers, for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application, (8) The complete permit history of the applicant concerning massage or massage therapy services provided by the applicant, including, without limitation, whether the applicant has ever had any license or permit, issued by any agency, board, City, or other jurisdiction, denied, revoked or suspended, and if so, the date, location and reason for the denial, revocation or suspension, (9) Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, (10) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (11) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct, (12) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents; and (c) understands the duties of a massage therapist as provided in this Division; (B) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (7) by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application; (C) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department; (D) A certified copy of the applicant's diploma or certificate of graduation and certified transcript of graduation for completion of five hundred (500) hours of instruction from a recognized school of massage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, an applicant may renew, prior to its expiration, a permit obtained from the City prior to the effective date of Section 6418.7 with fewer than five hundred (500) hours of instruction; provided, however, that the requirement for a minimum of five hundred (500) hours of instruction shall apply to any and all subsequent renewals of the permit; (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application; 6 (F) The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee at the time of filing an application, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. 6418.9. PROCESSING THE APPLICATION. All Massage Therapist Identification Card applications, and Business Owner /Operator Identification Card applications, together with the application fee, shall be submitted to the Arcadia Police Department. Following the determination by the Chief of Police that the application is complete, the Chief of Police shall conduct an investigation, in such manner as deemed appropriate, in order to ascertain whether such application should be approved as requested. Once it is deemed complete, the Chief of Police shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application, within fifteen (15) business days, unless delayed by fingerprint checking or other facts which require additional investigation to determine the qualifications of the applicant. If the investigation requires processing beyond the fifteen (15) business day limit, the applicant shall be notified of the delay by mail prior to the expiration of the fifteen (15) business days. 6418.10. ISSUANCE OF IDENTIFICATION CARD. The Chief of Police shall issue a Massage Therapist Identification Card or a Business Owner /Operator Identification Card if there are no grounds to disapprove the application as set forth in Sections 6418.16 and 6418.17 of this Division. 6418.11. BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED. Upon receipt of a Massage Therapist Identification Card, the applicant shall furnish the Card to the Business License Office and obtain the required business license, which includes obtaining approval from the Department of Development Services, Planning Services, of the proposed business location. Owners of businesses providing massage therapy services shall furnish the Owner /Operator Identification Card to the Business License Office and shall maintain a current business license. No business owner shall operate a business that provides massage therapy services unless such owner has a current business license, and a current Owner /Operator Identification Card. 6418.12. RENEWAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE. A massage therapist shall annually apply for renewal of the business license and the Massage Therapist Identification Card on forms provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The massage therapist applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application renewal fee at the time of filing a renewal application in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. The massage therapist applicant must complete the entire application process if the business license expires, or the business has been closed more than one (1) year. Owners and /or operators of businesses that provide massage therapy shall annually apply for renewal of the Owner /Operator Identification Card on forms provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The owner and /or operator applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application renewal fee at the time of filing a renewal application in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. The owner of a business that provides massage therapy shall maintain a current business license. 6418.13. TRANSFER OF LICENSE. No Massage Therapist Identification Card, Business License or Owner /Operator Identification Card shall be sold or transferred to any other person or persons. 6418.14. CHANGE OF INFORMATION. If, during the term of a Massage Therapist Identification Card or Business License, a massage therapist has any change of information submitted on the original application or license renewal application, the massage therapist shall notify the Arcadia Police Department and the Business License Officer of such change in writing within ten (10) business days thereafter. If, during the term of an Owner /Operator Identification Card, an owner and /or operator has any change of information submitted on the original application or the renewal application, the owner and /or operator shall notify the Arcadia Police Department of such change in writing. An owner shall also notify the Business License Officer of such change, within the same time period. 6418.15. CLOSURE OF MASSAGE THERAPIST BUSINESS LICENSE. The massage therapist is required to notify the Business License Office by written notice, filed within fifteen (15) business days after the last date of the performance or offering of massage therapy services, if he or she no longer performs or offers massage therapy services in the City of Arcadia. 6418.16. DISAPPROVAL OF BUSINESS OWNER/OPERATOR IDENTIFICATION CARD. If the Owner /Operator Identification Card application is denied, the Chief of Police shall provide written notice of the disapproval to the applicant. In cases where the Chief of Police does not respond to the applicant within fifteen (15) business days after the application is deemed complete, the application shall automatically be deemed disapproved on the sixteenth (16th) business day after the application was submitted and deemed complete. If the application is disapproved, the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for any Owner /Operator Identification Card for a minimum of one (1) year from the date the application was disapproved. An owner and /or operator who is denied an Owner /Operator Identification Card may not operate a business that provides massage therapy until such owner and /or operator obtains an Owner /Operator Identification Card. The application shall be disapproved if the Chief of Police finds any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The application is incomplete or any required information or document has not been provided with the application; 8 (B) The applicant has made one (1) or more false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact on the application or during the application process; (C) The applicant has, within ten (10) years preceding the date of the application, been convicted of disqualifying conduct, or of a lesser included offense; (D) The applicant is required to register as a sex offender; (E) The applicant has not met the requirements of this Division; (F) The granting of the identification card or license would pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare; (G) The applicant has been convicted of an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or moral turpitude, or an act of violence, which act or acts are substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a massage therapist; (H) The applicant has, within five (5) years preceding the date of application, had a similar permit or license denied, suspended or revoked for cause by a Licensing Authority, City, County or State. 6418.17. DISAPPROVAL OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD. If the Massage Therapist Identification Card application is denied, the Chief of Police shall provide written notice of the disapproval to the applicant. In cases where the Chief of Police does not respond to the applicant within fifteen (15) business days after the application is deemed complete, the application shall automatically be deemed disapproved on the sixteenth (16th) business day after the application was submitted and deemed complete. If the application is disapproved, the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for any Massage Therapist Identification Card or Business License within the City of Arcadia for a minimum of one (1) year from the date the application was disapproved. The application shall be disapproved if the Chief of Police finds any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The applicant is not eighteen (18) years of age or older; (B) The application is incomplete or any required information or document has not been provided with the application; (C) The applicant has made one (1) or more false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact on the application or during the application process; (D) The applicant has, within ten (10) years preceding the date of the application, been convicted of disqualifying conduct, or of a lesser included offense; (E) The applicant is required to register as a sex offender; (F) The applicant has not met the requirements of this Division; (G) The granting of the identification card or license would pose a threat to public health, safety.or welfare; 9 (H) The applicant has been convicted of an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or moral turpitude, or an act of violence, which act or acts are substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a massage therapist; (1) The applicant has, within five (5) years preceding'the date of application, had a massage therapist permit or similar permit or license denied, suspended or revoked for cause by a Licensing Authority, City, County or State. 6418.18. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. (A) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to expose or touch the genitals or anal area, or the breast of any female, whether his or her own, or those of another person. (B) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to engage in any sexual activities. (C) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to be in a state of nudity or semi - nudity. (D) No massage therapist shall provide or offer to provide any massage therapy services to a minor unless the minor's parent or legal guardian provides written permission. (E) No person shall enter, be in, or remain in, any area where massage therapy services are offered or performed while in the possession of, consuming, using or under the influence of, any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance. Service of alcoholic beverages shall not be permitted at any established business where massage therapy services are being performed. (F) Patrons shall not be prohibited from the use of, or possession of, cellular phones, pagers or any communication devices while massage therapy services are being offered or performed. (G) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to wear or have in their possession such items as nightgowns, negligees, bathrobes, sex paraphernalia or condoms. Every business owner and /or operator shall assure that such items are not being kept, possessed, stored or used on the business premises. (H) No electrical, mechanical or artificial device shall be used for audio and /or video recording or for monitoring the performance of a massage, or the conversation or other sounds in any massage room. 10 6418.19. OPERATIONS. (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shall at all times have in his or her possession the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and /or operator shall at all times have in his or her possession the Owner /Operator Identification Card required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each massage therapist shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to uniforms worn in medical offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron's specified anatomical areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed, any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi - nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (1) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of each Massage Therapist Identification Card, Owner /Operator Identification Card and Business License, shall be deemed to consent to the inspection 11 of the business premises by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Bath Facilities. A minimum of one (1) toilet and one (1) separate washbasin shall be provided for patrons. Soap or detergent and hot running water shall be provided to patrons and employees at all times and shall be located within close proximity to the area devoted to the performance of massage therapy services. A permanently installed soap dispenser, filled with soap, and a single service towel dispenser shall be provided at the restroom hand wash sink. No bar soap may be used. A trash receptacle shall be provided in each toilet room. (N) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (0) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (P) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 "). Two -inch (2 ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4') may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (Q) Doors. No massage therapy services shall be given within any room or enclosure that is fitted with a door capable of being locked. The business premises' exterior doors and any 12 doors separating the waiting or reception area from the remainder of the premises shall remain unlocked during business hours. (R) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minimum length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (S) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible to any person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: IN COOPERATION WITH THE ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR DOORS ARE TO REMAIN UNLOCKED AT ALL TIMES FOR PERIODIC INSPECTION TO INSURE OUR PROFESSIONALISM. (T) Roster of Employees. The business owner and /or operator shall maintain a., register of all massage therapists and employees, showing the name, nicknames and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) years following termination. The business owner and /or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately for inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (U) Records of Treatment. The business owner and /or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall 13 remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 6418.20. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF OWNERIOPERATOR IDENTIFICATION CARD. The Licensing Authority shall suspend or revoke an Owner /Operator Identification Card for any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The owner or operator has violated a provision of this Division; (B) The owner or operator is convicted of any disqualifying conduct or is required to register as a sex offender; (C) Information contained in the approved application is false, misleading or fraudulent; (D) The owner and /or operator refuses to allow representatives of the City to inspect business records or the owner or operator refuses to allow representatives of the City to inspect business premises owned or operated by the licensee and utilized for massage therapy services; (E) The owner or operator has ceased to meet any of the requirements of this Division. In the event of suspension or revocation of a card issued under this Division, the Licensing Authority shall send to the owner and /or operator a revocation or suspension notice ten (10) business days prior to the effective date of suspension or revocation. The card shall be deemed revoked or suspended on the eleventh (11th) business day after the City mails or otherwise delivers notice of suspension or revocation. 6418.21. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD AND BUSINESS LICENSE. The Licensing Authority shall suspend or revoke a Massage Therapist Identification Card and Business License for any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The administering of massage therapy services has been conducted in a manner that does not comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, this Division and the City's building and zoning regulations; (B) The license holder has violated a provision of this Division; (C) The license holder is convicted of any disqualifying conduct or is required to register as a sex offender; (D) Information contained in the approved application is false, misleading or fraudulent; (E) The license holder refuses to allow representatives of the City to inspect business records or any premises utilized by the licensee for massage therapy services; (F) The license holder has ceased to meet any of the requirements of this Division. In the event of suspension or revocation of a license or card issued under this Division, the Licensing Authority shall send to the license holder a revocation or suspension notice ten (10) business days prior to the effective date of suspension or revocation. The 14 license and /or card shall be deemed revoked or suspended on the eleventh (11th) business day after the City mails or otherwise delivers notice of suspension or revocation. 6418.22. RETURN OF LICENSE CERTIFICATE AND IDENTIFICATION CARD. If a Business License, Massage Therapist Identification Card, or Owner /Operator Identification Card is suspended or revoked, the license certificate and identification card shall be returned to the Licensing Authority no later than the end of the third (3rd) business day after the effective date of suspension or revocation. 6418.23. APPEALS. Within five (5) business days following the date of issuance by the Licensing Authority of the revocation or suspension notice, the applicant may file a written appeal to the Business Permit and License Review Board. The written appeal shall be filed at the City's Business License Office. In the event of an appeal, the effective date of license and /or card revocation or suspension shall automatically be continued until the date the City makes a determination concerning the appeal. Within ten (10) business days from the filing of such appeal, a hearing shall be conducted by the Business Permit and License Review Board at which time the applicant may present evidence in his /her favor and in opposition to the revocation or suspension. Within ten (10) business days from the conclusion of the hearing the Board shall make findings and render a final decision. 6418.24. REAPPLICATION AFTER REVOCATION. An applicant for either a license or an identification card under this Division whose license or identification card has been revoked may not reapply for such license or identification card for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation. However, the applicant may reapply prior to five (5) years if the applicant provides clear and convincing evidence that the ground or grounds for revocation no longer exist. 6418.25. EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this Division shall not apply to any of the following: (A) State licensed physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, physical therapists, osteopaths, or any registered or licensed vocational nurses working on the premises of, and under the direct supervision of, a State licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath; (B) Barbers, beauticians, manicurists and pedicurists who are duly licensed under the laws of the State of California, except that this exemption shall apply solely to the massaging of the scalp, face, neck, arms, hands, or feet of the client for cosmetic or beautifying purposes; and (C) Athletic trainers certified by the State of California performing training services for professionals, amateur or school athletic events or practices; and 15 (D) Duly licensed businesses and government agencies only with respect to on -site massage therapy services which are offered and provided at the expense of the business or government agency, or at the expense of their employees, exclusively to their respective employees, and not to the general public, solely as a benefit of employment. Massage therapy provided hereunder must be provided by a person who (1) is a massage therapist, as defined by this Division, who maintains a valid Massage Therapist Identification Card as set forth in Section 6418.8, or (2) qualifies for an exemption from Section 6418.8 pursuant to Section 6418.25(A) or (C) above. (Division 8 added by Ord. 2163 adopted 11 -5 -02; amended in its entirety by Ord. 2175 adopted 5 -6 -03; amended in its entirety by Ord. 2215 adopted 5- 20 -06; amended by Ord. 2235 adopted 1- 15 -08) 16 Best Health Center Pagel of los angeles craigslist > san gabriel valley > therapeutic services email this posting to a friend Best Health Center (Santa Anita) please BU wiffi care: miscateggiztd i Reply to: see below Ixohibited Date: 2009-04-11, 12:13AM PDT spam/oye= t best of craip-slist we offer: Acupuncture Swedish Massage Hot Oil Massage Combination Massage Stress & Pain Relief Professional therapists offer the professional services Exhibit `F' http: / /losangeles. craigslist .org /sgv /ths /1117152190.html 4/14/2009 best health Center A nice place for men & woman enjoy the fresh! ! ! Open 7 days a week— From 10:00 am - 9:00 pm. http: //losangeles. craigslist .org /sgv /ths /1117152190.htm1 ragcZ. UiJ 4/14/2009 Best Health Center Address: 25 N. Santa Anita Ave., #C, Arcadia, CA 91006 Tel: 626 -574 -7106 • Location: Santa Anita • it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests . License info: 5006015 PostingID: 1117152190 Jo contact info? the otter didn't include a hone number email or Page 3 of 3 IJL.L other contact info, craigslist can notify them via email. = `'n► Note! '? - Copyright m 2009 craigslist, inc. terms of use private policy feedback forum _ http: //Iosangeles. craigslist .org /sgv /ths /1117152190.html 4/14/2009 MPreviews.com - Escort Reviews and Massage Parlor Review Site Page 1 of 3 3ohnstrongl Become a �(jPl Tuesday, April 14, 2009 f. 11 u C HOME SEARCH REVIEWS Provider Details Eye Color: SUBMIT REVIEWS Favorites Add Notes L ink To This Review Add Review 38 -49 < Back Shoulder Hair Lili's Profile Build: MEMBER LOGIN Color: The ylp Members] MY ACCOUNT Name: Lill Provider 56105 CMAte Link -- MY EMAIL Breast Size: Id: MY FAVORITES age Work Mon : Tue : Wed : Thu : Fri : Sat : Sun MY BUDDY LIST w mass Company: new est Schedule: MY NOTES Phone: 626- Vin Membersi Category: YW Members] Vin Membersl City: San Gabriel Valley Price: Zn Membersi MESSAGE BOARDS 25 santa anita #C Address: Extra Tip: $40.00 CLASSIFIED ADS Gle Mao oop Vln Members) 1 ON 1 CYBER SEX Area arcadia Rate Ass LINK EXCHANGE AFFILIATE PROGRAM Parlor Profile y1D Members) Provider Details Ethnicity: Asian :Chinese Eye Color: Brown Age: 38 -49 Hair Length: Shoulder Hair Black Build: Curvy Color: The ylp Members] Kitty: Height: 5'4" to 5'6" Breast Size: Y1 Members) Breast Vio Members) Tattoos: Vin Members) Implants: Plercings: Vin Membersl Kitty: Vit Membersl C Hygiene: Vln Members) Size : Rate Ass Nice and Round Services The Members) Service; Vio Members) y: �{Io Kitt Hand io Members) Sex: Vlo Membersi Job: Finger Kissing: Vlp Membersl The ylp Members] Kitty: Anal Members) Blow Job: Vin Members) Vin Sex: 'k++--//-xnxnxr mrnrAViPWC nnTn /reviews details.T)hp ?reviews id =56105 4/14/2009 MPreviews.com - Escort Reviews and Massage Parlor Review Site Page 2 of 3 Now that you've gotten a glimpse of what lies a beneath the surface, It's time to dive in and see what's going on deep inside. In order to get into our Adult Section, only VIPs are allowed to enter. To gain access to all the hot details of all the ' Massage Parlors and Escort Reviews, there are two ways to play. You can submit a review and earn 10 days credit as a VIP for every approved '> ; review, or you can sponsor MPReviews.com for as low as $9.951 Three Payment options. 1. $9.95 a month - Save SO% best valuel billed at $119.79 every 12 months. 2. Initial payment for the first 30 days ($19.95 per month), then $14.95 per 30 days thereafter. 3. $55.00 - 3 Month Recurring Sava 8 Clerk here to 3oin Cancel anytime! 1. You will have FULL ACCESSI To over 30,000+ explicit reviews. 2. Email other hobbyists and providers privately with MPR mail box. 3. Keep track of your favorite providers in one easy location. 4. Keep private notes of anything and access It from the Internet anytime. S. Keep a buddy list of other hobbyists and providers In one easy location. 6. Receive daily 1W feeds of the newest reviews for the day. 7. Daily reviews by email for MPR VIP's: (Receive daily smalls to your inbox of the newest reviews for the day) S. Private Disscussion boards "VIP Members Only Lounge" dick here to Join Cancel anytime! Session Overview Read Reviews Date Reviewer Appearance@ Vote Performance E%9W Ai1 P,p ok time 03/17/09 1' ga W(V!p 3, Average 4. Good Members!) %uhoy(40) 03 BBAYv but 11-0 /13/09 (VIP 3. Average 3. Average Pine Cones Members!) Ra7le186(2? � 1P Average but 03/03/09 �(VIp 3. Average 4. Good ❑u Members!) - 03 d= t In a 03/02/09 ,,���� (Vip 3. Average 3. Average Alach Members!) 02/28/09 ( 1& Bman2k 3. Average 18 3. Average CC! Same LIII with Lim �,++„ / %xnxnN m„r PV;Pw�.r.�m /reviews details.php ?reviews _ id =56105 4/14/2009 MPreviews.com - Escort Reviews and Massage Parlor Review Site Imager halt (VIP I Membersl) ��Membersl) arnan2k 4 Not bad, not 11/26/08 "1BI•" bad.. (V XLC ladv. nets 11/04/08 ` fa � ( yi H porif481 the lob done. Membersl) Add Review 3. Average 06 Page 3 of 3 4. Good 3. Average & 3. Average Site Map I Privacy Policy I Time Taken = 0.0394 1 Contact Us I Link Exchange ~~ The contents of this site are registered and fully protected under the United States Copyright Act. Copyright © 2002 -2006 Happy Guy,S.A, All rights reserved. ,,++„•��.,,, :rtv mrra�tir��alc rnm /rAV1AWR df- tails.nhn ?reviews id =56105 4/14/2009 MPreviews.com - Escort Reviews and Massage Parlor Review Site Page 1 of 2 ;r, .�!!.. 'fit n Johnstrongl Become a API Tuesday, April 14, 2009 HOME SEARCH REVIEWS SUBMIT REVIEWS MEMBER LOGIN MY ACCOUNT MY EMAIL MY FAVORITES MY BUDDY LIST MY NOTES MESSAGE BOARDS CLASSIFIED ADS I ON 1 CYBER SEX LINK EXCHANGE AFFILIATE PROGRAM printer- friendly coov 'IS 101011 This review to a friend Bookmark this review Provider Details G < Back favorites Add Notes L ink To This Review Add 0.8view Alice ? ?'s Profile Area: arcadla Parlor Profile VI- Members) Provider Details Ethnicity: Provider 56690 CMA Ink Name: Alice ?? Id: Age: Work Company: new best massage Schedule: Phone: 626- Vio Members! Category: Z,n Members) City: San Gabriel Valley Price: Za Momhersl 25 santa anita #C Address: r--Iw Mart Extra Tip: $40.00 Area: arcadla Parlor Profile VI- Members) Provider Details Ethnicity: Asian :Chinese Eye Color: Brown Age: 38 -49 Hair Length: Shoulder Hair Black Build: Curvy Color: The Yip Members) Kitty: Anal Ir_ Members) Breast M_ Height: 5'4" to 5'6" Size: embersi Vlo Breast vin Members! Tattoos: Y1q Membersi Implants: Piercings: Vln Members) Kitty: Vin M�rsl Cup B Hygiene: Y1R Members) Size Rate Ass, Pancake Flat Services Lick The In e Y- Mmbers) Service: Vin Members) Kitty: Hand vin Membersl Sex: VI�Membersl Job: i " Finger Kissing: Vlo Members) The Yip Members) Kitty: Anal Ir_ Members) Blow Job: yjg_Membersl Sex: • �- �- ��-- L— �.. ;,a —«pan 4/14/2009 Wreviews.com - Escort Reviews and Massage Parlor Review Site rap L Ut a Now that you've gotten a glimpse of what Iles 1 ; beneath the surface, it's time to dive In and see what's going on deep Inside. In order to get into ' our Adult Section, only VIPs are allowed to enter. To gain access to all the hot details of all the Massage Parlors and Escort Reviews, there are two ways to play. You can submit a review and ' earn 10 days credit as a VIP for every app roved review, or you can sponsor MPReviews.cwm for as low as $9.951 Three Payment options: 1. $9.95 a month - Save 50% best valuel billed at $119.79 every 12 months. 2. Initial payment for the first 30 days ($19.95 per month), then $14.95 per 30 days thereafter. ?. 3. $55.00 - 3 Month Recurring Sava 8% Eck here to Join Cancel anytime! 1. You will have FULL ACCESSI To over 30,000+ explicit reviews. 2. Email other hobbyists and providers privately with MPR mall box. 3. Keep track of your favorite providers in one easy location. 4. Keep private notes of anything and access It from the Internet anytime. S. Keep a buddy list of other hobbyists and providers In one easy location. 6. Receive daily I= feeds of the newest reviews for the day. 7. Daily reviews by email for MPR VIP'S: (Receive dally smalls to your inbox of the newest reviews for the day) S. Private Disscussion boards "VIP Members Only Lounge" Click here to Join Cancel anytime! Session Overview Read Reviews Date Reviewer [Views All] Soca!07 IP Worth a try 12/20/08 in qp(vlP Members!) Appearance@ Vote Performance 2. Poor 46 4. Good Site Map I Privacy Policy I Time Taken = 0.0186 1 Contact Us I Link Exchange 1dd6e� 7 1© - R3& FEED_._. ®Yl J The contents of this site are registered and fully protected under the United States Copyright Act. Copyright ID 2002-2006 Happy Guy,S.A. All rights reserved. http:// www. mpreviews. com /reviews_details.php ?reviews_id =56690 4/14/2009 FILED } 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D D 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Attorney General of the State of California ABRAHAM M. LEVY, State Bar No. 189671 Deputy Attorney General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: (213) 897 -0977 Facsimile: (213) 897 -6326 Attorneys for Complainant SEP 9 2008 ACUPUNCTURE BOARD BEFORE THE ACUPUNCTURE BOARD DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. In the Matter of the Accusation Against: CHAO PANG, L.Ac, 745 E.Valley Blvd. # 226, San Gabriel, CA 91776 Case No. 1A- 2006 -33 ACCUSATION 'Acupuncturist No: AC 10529,' Respondent. Complainant. alleges:. PARTIES 1. Janelle Wedge (Complainant) brings this Accusation solely in her official capacity as the Executive Officer of the California Acupuncture Board (Board). 2. On or about September 21, 2005, the Board issued Acupuncturist license number AC 10529 to Chao Pang (Respondent). JURISDICTION 3. This Accusation is brought before the Board under the authority of the following laws. All section references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated. 4. Section 4955 of the Code states: 1 i Exhibit `G' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "The board may deny, suspend, or revoke, or impose probationary conditions upon, the license of any acupuncturist if he or she is guilty of unprofessional conduct. "Unprofessional conduct shall include, but not be limited to, the following: "(a) Using or possessing any controlled substance as defined in Division 10 (commencing with Section 11000) of the Health and Safety Code, or dangerous drug or alcoholic beverage to an extent or in a manner dangerous to himself or herself, or to any other person, or to the public, and to an extent that the use impairs his or her ability to engage in the practice of acupuncture with safety to the public. "(b) Conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of an acupuncturist, the record of conviction being conclusive evidence thereof. "(c) False or misleading advertising. "(d) Aiding or abetting in, or violating or conspiring in, directly or indirectly, the violation of the terms of this chapter or any regulation adopted by the board pursuant to this chapter. "(e) Except for good cause, the knowing failure to protect patients by failing to follow infection control guidelines of the board, thereby risking transmission of blood -borne infectious diseases from licensee to patient, from patient to patient, and from patient to licensee. In administering this subdivision, the board shall consider referencing the standards, regulations, and guidelines of the State Department of Health Services developed pursuant to Section 1250.11 of the Health and Safety Code and the standards, regulations, and guidelines pursuant to the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Part 1 (commencing with Section 6300) of Division 5 of the Labor Code) for preventing the transmission of HIV, hepatitis B, and other blood -borne pathogens in health care settings. As necessary, the board shall consult with the Medical Board of California, the California Board of Podiatric Medicine, the Dental Board of California, the Board of Registered Nursing, and the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians, to encourage appropriate consistency in the implementation of this subdivision. 2 I "The board shall seek to ensure that licensees are informed of the responsibility of 2 licensees and others to follow infection control guidelines, and of the most - recent 3 scientifically recognized safeguards for minimizing the risk of transmission of 4 blood -borne infectious diseases. 5 "(f) The use of threats or harassment against any patient or licensee for providing 6 evidence in a disciplinary action, other legal action, or in an investigation contemplating a 7 disciplinary action or other legal action. 8 "(g) Discharging an employee primarily for attempting to comply with the terms 9 of this chapter. 10 "(h) Disciplinary action taken by any public agency for any act substantially 11 related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of an acupuncturist or any professional 12 health care licensee. 13 "(i) Any action or conduct that would have warranted the denial of the I 14 acupuncture license. 15. "0) The violation of any law or local ordinance on an acupuncturist's business 16 premises by an acupuncturist's employee or a person who is working under the 17 acupuncturist's professional license or business permit, that is substantially related to the 18 qualifications, functions, or duties of an acupuncturist. These violations shall subject the 19 acupuncturist who employed the individuals, or under whose acupuncturist license the 20 employee is working, to disciplinary action. 21 "(k) The abandonment of a patient by the licentiate without written notice to the 22 patient that treatment is to be discontinued and before the patient has had a reasonable 23 opportunity to secure the services of another practitioner. 24 "(1) the failure to notify the board of the use of any false, assumed, or fictitious 25 name other than the name under which he or she is licensed as an individual to practice 26 acupuncture." 27 5. Section 4961 of the Code states: 28 "(a) Every person who is now or hereafter licensed to practice acupuncture in this 3 I state shall register, on forms prescribed by the Acupuncture Board, his or her place of 2 practice, or, if he or she has more than one place of practice, all of the places of practice. 3 If the licensee has no place of practice, he or she shall notify the board of that fact. A 4 person licensed by the board shall register within 30 days after the date of his or her 5 licensure. 6 "(b) An acupuncturist licensee shall post his or her license in a conspicuous 7 location in his or her place of practice at all times. If an acupuncturist has more than one 8 place of practice, he or she shall obtain from the board a duplicate license for each 9 additional location and post the duplicate license at each location. 10 "(c) Any licensee that changes the location of his or her place of practice shall 11 register each change within 30 days of making that change. �In the event a licensee fails to 12 notify the board of any change in the address of a place of practice within the time 13 prescribed by this section, the board may deny renewal of licensure. An applicant for 14 renewal of licensure shall specify in his or her application whether or not there has been a 15 change in the location of his or her place of practice and, if so, the date of that change. 16 The representative shall be prima facie evidence of reasonable costs of investigation and 17 prosecution of the case. The costs shall include the amount of investigative and 18 enforcement costs up to the date of the hearing, including, but not limited to, charges 19 imposed by the Attorney General. board may accept that statement as evidence of the 20 change of address." 21 6. Section 731, subdivision (a), of the Code states; 22 "Any person licensed, certified, registered, or otherwise subject to regulation 23 pursuant to this division [Division 2, Healing Arts, commencing with section 500 of the 24 Business and Professions Code] who engages in, or who aids or abets in, a violation of 25 Section 266h, 2661, 315, 316, or 318 of, or subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 647 of, the 26 Penal Code occurring in the work premises of, or work area under the direct professional 27 supervision or control of, that person, shall be guilty of unprofessional conduct. The 28 license, certification, or registration of that person shall be subject to denial, suspension, 4 I or revocation by the appropriate regulatory entity under this division." 2 COST RECOVERY 3 7. Business and Professions Code section 125.3.states that: 4 "(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, in any order issued in resolution of a 5 disciplinary proceeding before any board within the department or before the Osteopathic 6 Medical Board upon request of the entity bringing the proceedings, the administrative law judge 7 may direct a licentiate found to have committed a violation or violations of the licensing act to 8 pay a sum not to exceed the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of the case. 9 "(b) In the case of a disciplined licentiate that is a corporation or a partnership, the 10 order may be made against the licensed corporate entity or licensed partnership. 11 "(c) A certified copy of the actual costs, or a good faith estimate of costs where 12 actual costs are not available, signed by the entity bringing the proceeding or its designated "(d) 13 The administrative law judge shall make a proposed finding of the amount of reasonable costs of 14 investigation and prosecution of the case when requested pursuant to subdivision (a). The 15 finding of the administrative law judge with regard to costs shall not be reviewable by the board 16 to increase the cost award. The board may reduce or eliminate the cost award, or remand to the 17 administrative law judge if the proposed decision fails to make. a finding on costs requested 18 pursuant to subdivision (a). 19 "(e) If an order for recovery of costs is made and timely payment is not made as 20 directed in the board's decision, the board may enforce the order for repayment in any appropriate 21 court. This right of enforcement shall be in addition to any other rights the board may have as to 22 any licentiate to pay costs. 23 "(f) In any action for recovery of costs, proof of the board's decision shall be 24 conclusive proof of the validity of the order of payment and the terms for payment. 25 "(g)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the board shall not renew or reinstate 26 the license of any licentiate who has failed to pay all of the costs ordered under this 27 section. 28 (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the board may, in its discretion, conditionally 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 renew or reinstate for a maximum of one year the license of any licentiate who demonstrates financial hardship and who enters into a formal agreement with the board to reimburse the board within that one -year period for the unpaid costs. "(h) All costs recovered under this section shall be considered a reimbursement for costs incurred and shall be deposited in the fund of the board recovering the costs to be available upon appropriation by the Legislature. "(i) Nothing in this section shall preclude a board from including the recovery of the costs of investigation and enforcement of a case in any stipulated settlement. � I "(j) This section does not apply to any board if a specific statutory provision in that board's, licensing act provides for recovery of costs in an administrative disciplinary "(k) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the Medical Board of California shall not request nor obtain from a physician and surgeon, investigation and prosecution costs for a disciplinary proceeding against the licentiate. The board shall ensure that this subdivision is revenue neutral with regard to it and that any loss of revenue or increase in costs resulting from this subdivision is offset by an increase in the amount. of the initial license fee and the biennial renewal fee, as provided in subdivision (e) of Section 2435." 8. Section 4959 of the Code states: "(a) The board may request the administrative law judge, under his or her proposed decision in resolution of a disciplinary proceeding before the board, to direct any licensee found guilty of unprofessional conduct to pay to the board a sum not to exceed actual and reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the case. "(b) The costs to be assessed shall be fixed by the administrative law judge and shall not in any event be increased by the board. When the board does not adopt a proposed decision and remands the case to an administrative law judge, the administrative law judge shall not increase the amount of any costs assessed in the proposed decision." "(c) When the payment directed in the board's order for payment of costs is not made by the licensee, the board may enforce the order for payment in the superior court in 0 I the county where the administrative hearing was held. This right of enforcement shall be 2 in addition to any other rights the board may have as to any licensee directed to pay costs. 3 "(d) In any judicial action for the recovery of costs, proof of the board's decision 4 shall be conclusive proof of the validity of the order of payment and the terms for 5 payment. 6 "(e) All costs recovered under this section shall be considered a reimbursement 7 for costs incurred and shall be deposited in the Acupuncture Fund." 8 FIRST CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE 9 (Law Violation by a Person Working on the Premises) 10 9. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 4955, 11 subdivision (j). He violated this section when individuals under his Iicense at three different 12 businesses he owned or operated worked as illegal massage technicians and solicited for 13 prostitution in violation of local and state laws 14 10. The facts and circumstances involving these three business are as follows: 15 GUANG LONG ACUPUNCTURIST IN THE CITY OF LA HABRA 16 11. On or about December 8, 2006 La Habra police received a citizen's 17 complaint that illegal activities other than massage appeared to be occurring at the property 18 identified as 412 West Whittier Boulevard in La Habra. The citizen complainant referenced some 19 advertisements on the internet by the business, which were in the erotic section of the 20 " web page. The ads contained pictures of women dressed in underwear or bathing 21 suits, often in suggestive poses. 22 12. A phone number was listed in the craigslist ad.. The police investigated the 23 number and found that it was registered in the name of Jine Yu through MPower 24 Communications Corp -CA wireless. Several persons interviewed by the police said they called 25 this number and were directed to 412 W. Whittier Boulevard to receive massage services. 26 13. Through further police investigation the police discovered that a La Habra 27 business license, number 23626, was registered in the name of Guang Long Acupuncturist, at 28 412 West Whittier Blvd. According to the information on the license, the owner of the business 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 was Respondent. 14. Through further investigation police identified several possible employees of this business. Based on preliminary background checks police found that two of these persons had prior arrests for prostitution. 15. Police then conducted several surveillences at 412 West Whittier Boulevard over several weeks. At these surveillences police saw several males come to the business. Each male would walk up to the door of the business and place one or more cell phone calls. After these calls were placed the front door of the business would open and the male subject on the phone would enter the business. 16. Respondent was never seen at the business. 17. An inspection warrant was obtained for the business on February 6, 2007. At that time police found no sign or other notices identifying the business anywhere on the outside of the business. 18. In addition, no license for acupuncture was displayed at the property in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 4961. Furthermore, there weren't any business, massage and/or acupuncture licenses with the City of La Habra displayed on the property in violation of La Habra Municipal Code Sections 5.04.210 and 5.28.090 (G). 19. No equipment was present for the provision of acupuncture services including no needles, disinfectants, sterilizers, herbal medicines, and latex gloves. 20. No patient or business records were located at the property. 21. A Verizon invoice was found in one of the rooms, The invoice was located inside the desk and billed to Tommy Ung at "Accupuncture Clinic" located at 412 West Whittier Boulevard. There were three other unopened pieces of mail addressed to "the Acupuncture I Clinic." 22. The police interviewed several male customers of the business. One told the police that he had received manual sexual stimulation by a woman providing the massage. Anther male told the police that the woman providing the massage asked him if he wanted manual sexual stimulation. When he told the woman he did not have money for the service the 8 I woman told him "next time." Another male client told detectives that he had received a massage 2 at the business. 3 23. Several individual employees were interviewed. One admitted that a 4 massage business was operated at the property. 5 24. Detective Bancroft with the La Habra Police Department interviewed 6 Respondent on February 7, 2007. Respondent admitted to Detective Bancroft that he owned the 7 business at 412 West Whittier Boulevard. When the officer told Respondent that it was his 8 opinion that his business was a front for a massage establishment and a house of prostitution. 9 Respondent did not comment. 10 WELLBEING HEALTH THERAPY IN COVINA 11 25. Wellbeing Health Therapy was set up as an acupuncture business with 12 Respondent as the responsible acupuncturist. Respondent had a lease to the premises d.b.a. 13 "Health Center" for 19506 E. Cienega Avenue in Covina. Respondent leased the location 14 December 2005 through November 2006 for the purpose of operating an "Accupuncture (sic) and 15 or Accupressure" business. ' 16 26. On March 7, 2006 at 19506 E. Cienega Avenue in Covina, based on a 17 request by another police department, an undercover police officer went to this business and 18 received a massage and a prostitution violation. 19 27. The 19506 E. Cienaga Avenue address was also was site of a prostitution 20 violation on November 29, 2005, seven days before Respondent leased the E. Cienega location. 21 28. The business did not have a county business license. 22 29. When the prostitution violation signal was given by the undercover officer 23 police went into the business to facilitate the arrest. 24 30. A receptionist started yelling in a foreign language when she saw a police 25 officer show his badge. 26 31. When police entered the massage room police observed a female 27. attempting to put her clothes on and the undercover detective. 28 32. A male customer told police that he knew about the business from an ad in 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I the newspaper, 33 An employee told police that Chao Pang was the acupuncturist on site. Police called and asked him if this was "Doctor Pang," the person in charge of Wellbeing Health Center. Respondent said yes. After the police officer told him that he was a police officer Respondent said that he does not speak English. 34. An inspection of the business found no patient files, assessment forms, or medical forms. Police found one box of acupuncture needles in the office area and an empty needle box in the plastic cabinets inside one of the massage rooms. 35. Police found a box containing plastic "Saran" wrap. 36. A purse of one of the employees present contained a false lipstick container with condoms hidden inside and the purse was on the Property in the front office area I of the business. 37. A citation was issued for operating without a massage technician license, a violation of LACC 7.54.210 and prostitution, a violation of 647(b) of the Penal Code. 38. -The Los Angeles County District Attorney did not, however, file charges against this individual. AO ACC UCARF IN THE CITY OF STANTON 39. On or about April 20, 2006 Orange County Sheriff Investigator K. Bieker was surveying the Internet and periodical sites for advertisements for fronts for prostitution. The investigator noticed in the Adult Services section of the Orange County Register an ad for "Relaxing and Soothing Massage at 12258 Beach Boulevard in Stanton. Shower available 714- 1 899- 5109." 40. The investigator called this number on April 20, 2006 and spoke with a female with an Asian accent. The female told the investigator that the correct address is 12235 Beach Boulevard number six (6) in Stanton and that the business is "AO Accucare." She further told the investigator that the price of a massage is $50.00 41. The investigator called the city of Stanton regarding a business license for this address and was told that there was no record of a business, massage, or massage technician 10 I license, at that address location. 2 42. The investigator walked into the business at 12235 Beach Boulevard 3 number six (6) and met with an Asian female later identified as Yuan Liu. When he asked her for 4 a business card she gave the investigator a post it note with the number 714 -521 -8209 on it. 5 43. The investigator did see what appeared to be an Acupuncturist License 6 with the name "Chao Dang" on it. The investigator tried calling the number he was given but was 7 told it was disconnected. 8 44. On the same date, April 25, 2006, he returned to the business posing as a 9 customer. He spoke with Yuan Liu and told her that he wanted a one hour massage. A 10 receptionist told him that the cost was $50.00 and the investigator gave her a $100.00 bill. He 11 was not asked to sign any roster or questionnaire and he was not examined or questioned by 12 anyone. The investigator then disrobed and covered himself with a towel. 13 45. As he was walking toward the massage room, an Asian female, later 14 identified as "Linda," walked with him into the massage room. She had his $50.00 change and he 15 told her to set it next to his clothes. He laid down on the massage table and covered his buttocks 16 with a towel. Linda gave him a full body massage. Linda at one point climbed on the table and 17 stratled his back. 18 46. After about thirty to forty minutes she instructed him to turn over. When 19 he turned over, he held up the towel and then she covered his genitals with the. towel. She 20 massaged his arms and chest down to the pubic area. At this point, Linda put her hand on his 21 genitals which were covered by a towel. She then asked him, "You want ?" Based on the 22 investigator's experience this meant she was asking him if he wanted to be masturbated. He told 23 her that he did. 24 47. In an act of furtherance, Linda walked around the massage table and put 25 oil on her hands. She removed the towel and she began to masturbate his genitals. Then he ran 26 her hand over his penis three to four times in an attempt to masturbate him. To stop what she was 27 doing, the investigator sat up and asked her if "forty" dollars was enough, as he lifted up four 28 fingers on his right hand. She appeared to wink and slightly nod her head. She kept her hand on 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 his penis during this conversation and then she ran hand over his penis two to three more times. 48. The investigator stopped her by moving her hand away. He tried to get out of the situation by pointing to her crotch and telling her that he wanted to have sex. She stepped away and said no. 49. The investigator told her that it was okay. She covered his genitals with a towel and then she continued to massage his back and neck for a few minutes before she told me that she was finished. During this time he asked her when she worked again and she told me that she might work tomorrow and Friday. He told her that if I came back tomorrow he would want sex. She pointed to her crotch and she said, "tomorrow." He asked her how much and asked her if one hundred dollars would be enough. She said she did not know. 50. The investigator left. He made a query of the California Acupuncture website to see if there was a Chao Dang or an acupuncturist using 12235 Beach Boulevard. The results showed there was no match for the name or the address. 51. A second Sheriff Investigator, C. Wax, also on April 25, 2006 went to the business at 12235 Beach Boulevard posing as a customer. 52. He met Yuan. Liu and asked for a massage giving her a $100.00 bill. He was not asked to sign any type of registration or complete a medical questionnaire. 53. He was told to undress, which he did. While waiting he noticed a massage table, numerous towels, lotions, massage oils, a box of tissues and a warmer. 54. Liu entered the room and placed change in the amount of $50.00 next to his clothes. Liu poured oil on him and massaged him and while doing so lightly brushed his genitals. 55. After about forty minutes, Liu asked "Is this OK ?" Investigator Wax said yes and Liu walked to the head of the massage table and poured some lotion into her right hand. She walked to his right side and, next to his waist, reached out and started to masturbate him. He sat up and asked her how much this would cost. She told him that "it's included" and in an'act of furtherance started to masturbate him again. The investigator then sat up and said he did not want to be masturbated. He told Liu that he would like to come back and see her in the future. 12 1 56. On April 26, 2006, Investigator Bieker attempted to go to the business but 2 the business was closed. 3 57. On May 3, 2006, the Investigator called 714- 899 - 5109 and spoke with a 4 female who had an Asian accent. She told the investigator that the business was open. 5 58. Investigator Bieker went to the business a second time posing as a 6 customer. He met at the reception desk an Asian female identified as Han. He said he wanted an 7 hour -long massage. He was told the massage would be $55.00 and he gave her a $100.00 bill. He 8 removed his clothes. f 9 59. Han then entered the room and began to give him a massage. During the 10 course of this massage she ran her hand over his penis three to four times. He sat up and asked 11 her pointing to the change if this was enough. She appeared to nod her head. He laid back down 12 and she ran her hand over his penis two to three more times. 13 60. To get her to stop the investigator pointed to her crotch and told her that he 14 really wanted to have sex. She shook her head no. Then he pointed to her mouth and asked her 15 for oral sex. She said no. She put her hand on his penis again and he asked her if she could just 16 continue with the massage. 17 61. The female - got a paper towel and wiped off his genitals. She said if he 18 wanted it, it was okay and she said she would help him. He was not sure what she was talking 19 about. He told her okay and she poured on his genitals again. To avoid further contact he sat up 20 and covered his genitals with a towel. She walked up next to him, looked into his eyes and said 21 told him that she liked the color of his eyes. She said that she hoped he wasn't mad. She then s 22 tried to kiss him on the lips which he refused to do. She again tried to kiss him. He asked her 23 when she worked and she said Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. He told her that he would like to 24 come back and see her again. She pointed to her crotch and she told me that she could not have 25 sex or oral sex at the massage parlor. She pointed to his crotch and she simulated masturbation, 26 as she told him that she helps customers that need it. 27 62. Later. on this date, May 3, 2006, Investigators Bieker and Wax then served 28 a search warrant upon the premises with other police officers. 13 1 63. During the search the investigator discovered the following documents: 2 the Acupuncture Board license of Chao Pang AC 10529 issued 9 -21 -5; receipt for a business 3 license application dated March 15, 2006 using the name AO Acupuncture at 12235 Beach 4 Boulevard number six (6). The owner of the business was listed as Hong Guang Service Inc. 5 ( "Dr. Chao Pang "). The investigator queriered the Acupuncture Board. Information was located 6 for Chao Pang that listed his address at 745 E. Valley Boulevard number two hundred and 7 twenty -six (226) in the city of San Gabriel. 8 64. The business contained three separate rooms that were set up for massage 9 services. These rooms contained traditional oils, a massage table, lotion, oil, rubbing alcohol, 10 towel warmer. The investigator located some acupuncture needles in a drawer inside massage 11 room 2. The electrical stimulation device was not operational since it did not have a power cord 12 and was missing the batteries. 13 65. One of the employees at the premises gave the investigator a telephone 14 number in order to reach the owner of the business. The investigator called this number and the 15 number was the same number listed on the business license for the owner, "Hong Guang Service 16 Inc. (Dr. Chao Pang):" 17 66. The lease signed for the premises identified the business as an 18 "Acupuncture treatment office." 19 67. As a result of the investigation the Orange County District Attorney on 20 September 14, 2006 charged respondent and Yuan Liu and Hong Gong AO, as owner, operator, 21 manager and licensee with operating a massage establishment without licensed technicians. 22 68. In addition, two other persons, Wei Han, Yuan Liu and Jingling Zhou were 23 charged with acting as massage technicians without valid massage technician licenses. 24 69. Yuan Liu and Wei Han were also charged with violating Penal Code 25 Section 647(b), engaging in prostitution. 26 70. In addition Yuan Liu was charged with violating Section 315 of the Penal 27 Code, keeping a house of ill repute. 28. 71. On March 1, 2007, Han Wei pled guilty to the amended complaint, a 14 11 21 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 .26 27 28 violation of Penal Code 415(2), based on a violation occurring on April 25, 2006. She was placed on informal probation with certain terms and conditions and ordered to pay a fine of $120.00 and was required to take an AIDS Education Prevention course with testing included. 72. Yuan Liu pled guilty to a violation of Penal Code 415(2) and ordered to be placed on three years informal probation. She also was required to take an AIDS Education Prevention course with testing included. 73. Zhou Jingling failed to appear in Superior Court and a bench warrant was issued. 74. Charges were dismissed against Respondent. 75. As a result of these violations of law by individuals working at Respondent's places of business Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and is subject to discipline. SECOND CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Aiding and Abetting Violation of Penal Code 64.7(b) In Work Premises) 76. Complainant repeats paragraphs 11 through 72 and incorporates same as if fully included herein. 77. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 731. He aided and abetted violations of Penal Code section 647(b) by allowing his acupuncture license and businesses to be used as fronts for houses of prostitution. 78. As a result Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and is subject to discipline. THIRD CAUSE FOR DISCIPLINE (Failure to Register Place of Practice) 79. Complainant repeats paragraphs 11 through 72 and incorporates same as if fully included herein. 80. Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 4961 because he failed to register, on forms prescribed by the Acupuncture Board, all his places of practice with the Board. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 81. As a result Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and is subject to discipline. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Acupuncture Board issue a decision: 1. Revoking or suspending Acupuncturist Number AC 10529, issued to Chao Pang; 2. Ordering Chao Pang to pay the Acupuncture Board the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 4959; 3. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper. DATED SEP 9 2008 1�4'641 -4 LLE WEDGE xecutive Officer Acupuncture Board Department of Consumer Affairs State of California Complainant 16 LA2008501637 50308273.wpd v — 7 STAFF RVIETORT Development Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director SDK Robert Sanderson, Chief of Police-�',r. SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 2260, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE VI OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF MASSAGE THERAPIST BUSINESSES Recommendation: Introduce SUMMARY The City Council passed a moratorium on massage uses on October 21, 2008 that was subsequently expanded on November 18, 2008 for an additional 10 months and 15 days per statute. The moratorium has provided staff with time to review the City's regulations and enforcement and to consider new State legislation governing massage therapists (SB 731). The attached Ordinance represents proposed changes to the City's massage therapist requirements to better regulate massage uses in the City of Arcadia. BACKGROUND In response to a proliferation of establishments that provide massage services, City staff brought forward information to the City Council last year to review massage regulations and consider actions. The Development Services Department and Police Department provided information on the massage licensing process and on the increases in license requests for day spas, medical office uses such as chiropractors and acupuncturists, and other "health centers ". In addition, a team of inspectors made a series of inspections of over 40 such establishments in the City over a period of months and found violations of the existing Ordinance at virtually every establishment. These inspections are ongoing and while most of the establishments have addressed July 21, 2009 Ordinance No. 2260 Page 2 the violations noted, there were several business license revocations and there remain outstanding violations. In response to this information, the City Council passed a moratorium on massage uses on October 21, 2008 that was subsequently expanded on November 18, 2008 for an additional 10 months and 15 days per statute. The moratorium has provided staff with time to review the City's regulations and enforcement and to consider new State legislation governing massage therapists (SB 731). To obtain additional direction, staff held a study session with the City Council on April 7, 2009 to discuss issues germane to the new Ordinance and the lifting of the Moratorium. The Moratorium is in place until October 21, 2009. Since the Moratorium has been in place, the Business License Officer, on recommendation of the Police Department, has issued revocations to eight (8) establishments. Of these, four establishments have closed, two establishments appealed this decision and were denied by the City Council following a hearing, one is still pending, and the final license was re- instated by the Council following appeal and a hearing. The Business License Office and Police Department are currently considering additional revocations. DISCUSSION The City's Moratorium on massage uses and massage therapist licenses has provided staff with an opportunity to research this topic, track changes in State law, and develop the attached Draft Ordinance. One of the key issues that emerged through this review process was to adequately regulate massage uses while not creating the unintended over - regulation of legitimate massage uses and other related businesses. There are currently a number of legitimate massage uses in Arcadia that operate in association with medical offices, and personal service businesses such as day spas or salons. The existing regulations do not allow stand -alone massage parlors; massage must be a secondary and incidental use. The new Ordinance retains this restriction. In addition, the new Ordinance will continue to rely heavily on enforcement. The Police Department and Development Services Department will continue to work toward enforcement of those operations that are not adhering to the rules. Each of the significant changes to the Ordinance is discussed below: Compliance and coordination with new State process Senate Bill 731 establishes a statewide process of regulating massage therapist licenses. The State's appointed agency is to begin accepting applications in September 2009. The new law establishes required hours of training from applicants at certain approved training centers or schools as well as fingerprinting and renewals every two years. The goal of this process as written is to standardize the licensing July 21, 2009 Ordinance No. 2260 Page 3 procedure. To this end, the City Attorney's office has advised that the City not totally defer to the State's process. There are doubts as to whether the State will be able to have the new process up and running by September 1, 2009. It is also possible that the new process will not provide the safeguards and oversight necessary to adequately regulate licensing. Ordinance No. 2260 provides language that will accept any State - approved massage license as valid in the City of Arcadia. However, the Ordinance leaves in place its existing standards to cover any therapist who does not present the City with a State - approved license. Any therapist who does not have a State license would be required to go through the Police Department's background test. Prohibit massage therapy to occur in coordination with acupuncturists At the request of the City Council, a provision has been added in the new Ordinance that prohibits massage therapists at acupuncture offices. Limiting the number of allowable licenses at a Doctor or Chiropractor's office One of the perceived "loopholes" in the City's previous Ordinance is that an acupuncturist or chiropractor can open an office and have a number of massage therapists on staff. The Code currently limits this to "a maximum of two at any one time on the premises ". However, this becomes an enforcement issue because an unlimited number of licenses could be issued to a business like this. The proposed Ordinance will simply allow a maximum of two business licenses for massage therapists to be issued to any business office. Additional considerations such as additional physical and written testing of applicants and potential Conditional Use Permit requirements for massage uses were rejected following the study session with the City Council. These provisions were viewed as unfair to legitimate businesses in that they may be expensive and time consuming. Additionally, these provisions were viewed as unnecessary if enforcement activity is continued as it has been. Ordinance No. 2260 reflects the combined efforts of the City Attorney's office, the Police Department, and the Development Services Department to craft a fair and comprehensive set of regulations for massage therapists and massage uses. The Ordinance meets new State law and provides clear steps for licensing and enforcement of these uses. With regard to the California Environmental Quality Act, this Ordinance does not qualify as a "project" under Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations July 21, 2009 Ordinance No. 2260 Page 4 (CEQA Guidelines) and is therefore exempt in that there is no possibility of an environmental impact. FISCAL IMPACT While there is the potential for a reduction in fees collected by the City as a result of potential reliance on the State's licensing process, this is not viewed as a significant fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council move to introduce Ordinance No. 2260, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, Amending Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code Concerning the Licensing of Massage Therapist Businesses. Approved: Donald Penman, City Manager Exhibits: Attachment A: Ordinance No. 2260 Attachment B: Redline version of Ordinance Language ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. 2260 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE VI, CHAPTER 4, DVISION 8 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING THE LICENSING OF MASSAGE THERAPIST BUSINESSES WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia ( "City ") is authorized by the California Constitution and Government Code Section 51030 et. s2q., to regulate massage establishments by imposing reasonable standards relative to the skill and experience of massage operators and massage technicians and reasonable conditions on the operation of massage establishments; and WHEREAS, massage establishments are businesses which involve significant intimate contact between persons which creates opportunities for acts of prostitution and other unlawful sexual activity to occur as well as posing health and safety risks if massage therapy is not performed correctly; and WHEREAS,. Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code currently regulates massage establishments and massage therapists to reduce the risk of illicit activity and to protect the health and safety of the City's citizens; and WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Section 4600.5 creates a state - organized non -profit massage therapy organization that may begin issuing massage certifications to massage technicians on September 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Section 4612 limits the ability of cities to regulate the operations of massage establishments employing only massage therapists who have received certification from the massage therapy organization, including preempting most local licensure requirements and some land use regulations; and WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Section 4612 also prevents any city from requiring the holder of a massage certificate received from the massage therapy organization to obtain an additional license, permit, or other authorization to practice massage; and WHEREAS, Business and Professions Code Section 4612 does not prevent cities from adopting or enforcing any local ordinance governing zoning, business licensing, and reasonable health and safety requirements for massage establishments and businesses; and WHEREAS, the City has the duty to protect its citizens by ensuring that all massage therapy businesses operating within City limits do so in a safe, clean, and healthful manner; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend the Arcadia Municipal Code to ensure the City regulates massage therapists and massage businesses in compliance with the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 4600 et. seq.; and WHEREAS, the City believes that it will benefit the public and promote the City's significant governmental interest in protecting its citizens from unscrupulous and unsafe business practices by creating enhanced business licensing requirements for owners and operators of massage therapy businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 6418 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The City of Arcadia is authorized, by virtue of the State Constitution and Section 51031 of the Government Code, to regulate massage therapists by conditioning the issuance of a license to engage in the business of massage on reasonable standards relative to their skill and experience, and to regulate owners and operators of massage therapy businesses to ensure the safety of clients receiving massage therapy. While the City Council recognizes that section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code gives those individuals who are certified pursuant to chapter 10.5 of the Business and Professions Code the right to practice massage, the City Council also finds that section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code gives the City the right to adopt reasonable business licensing and health and safety requirements for massage establishments and businesses. The City Council finds and determines that licensing standards pertaining to massage therapy business activities are necessary to protect the public health and safety and the personal safety of massage therapists. The City Council further finds that the public health and safety are best served by the adoption of an ordinance providing for regulation of massage therapy business activities in a manner that is consistent throughout the City of Arcadia. The establishment of reasonable standards for issuance of a license and restrictions on massage therapy business activities would serve to reduce the risk of illegal activities. There is a significant risk of injury to massage clients by improperly trained and/or uneducated massage therapists and this Division provides reasonable safeguards against injury and economic loss. SECTION 2. Section 6418.1 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 2 6418.1. DEFINITIONS. "Acupressure" shall mean the stimulation or sedation of specific meridian points and trigger points near the surface of the body by the use of pressure applied in order to prevent or modify perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, in the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body. "Acupuncture" means the stimulation of a certain point or points on or near the surface of the body by the insertion of needles to prevent or modify the perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, for the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body and includes the techniques of electroacupuncture, cupping, and moxibustion. "Acupuncturist" means an individual to whom a license has been issued to practice acupuncture pursuant to chapter 12 of the Business and Professions Code, which is in effect and is not suspended or revoked. "Applicant" means the individual seeking a business license pursuant to this Division. "Certified copy" shall mean a copy of a document that is certified by the issuer as being a true and accurate copy of the original document or a similar document bearing an original signature of the issuer. "Chief of Police" means the Chief of Police of the City of Arcadia, or his or her designated representative. "City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card" shall mean the card issued by the City of Arcadia after receiving a certified copy of a massage therapist's massage certificate which verifies the massage therapist's ability to practice massage in the City of Arcadia. "City regulatory officials" shall mean the City's Licensing Authority, Building and Planning Services, Code Services Officers, Fire Department and the Police Department. "Disqualifying conduct" means any of the following: (A) Pandering; (B) Keeping or residing in a house of ill -fame; (C) Keeping a house for the purpose of assignation or prostitution, or other disorderly house; (D) Prevailing upon a person to visit a place of illegal gambling or prostitution; (E) Lewd conduct; (F) Prostitution activities; 3 (G) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony; (H) Any felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (I) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (J) Any misdemeanor or felony offense which relates directly to the practice of massage therapy, whether as a massage therapy business owner or operator, or as a massage therapist; or (K) Any felony the commission of which occurred on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. "Employ" shall include, without limitation, contracting with independent contractors as well as hiring or employing persons. "Employee" shall include, without limitation, independent contractors and persons hired or employed by an operator or owner of a massage therapy business. "Health Department" means the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services. "Licensing Authority" shall mean the Business License Officer or the designated official responsible for issuing, revoking and otherwise administering the provisions of this Division. "Massage" or "massage therapy" shall mean any method of pressure on, or friction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, vibrating, or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the hands or with the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appliance, with or without supplementary aids such as creams, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in the practice of massage, under such circumstances that it is reasonably expected that the person to whom the treatment is provided or some third person on his or her behalf will pay money or give any other consideration or any gratuity therefor. "Massage Business License" or "Business License" or "License" shall mean the City of Arcadia business license required to be applied for and obtained by anyone wishing to own or operate a massage therapy business. "Massage Certificate" shall mean a certificate issued pursuant to section 4601(a) of the Business and Professions Code (Chapter 10.5 commencing with Section 4600). "Massage therapist" shall mean any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, performs or offers to perform a massage in a massage therapy business. "Massage therapy business" shall mean both massage establishments or businesses that are sole proprietorships, where the sole proprietor has either a Massage Certificate or a Massage Therapist Identification Card and massage establishments or businesses that employ or use only 4 persons that have either a Massage Certificate or a Massage therapist identification card to provide massage services. "Massage Therapist Identification Card" shall mean a card issued by the City of Arcadia which allows the holder of the card to practice massage in the City. "Minor" means any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years. "Nudity" or "semi- nudity" shall mean any of the following: (A) The appearance or display of an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast; or (B) A state of undress which less than completely covers an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast. "Operator" or "owner" means the individual(s) who are responsible for the management and/or supervision of a massage therapy business. Whenever the term owner or operator is used in this Division, it shall be deemed to include, without limitation, the manager of any massage therapy business. "Patron" shall mean any person who receives a massage in exchange for any form of consideration including, but not limited to, the payment of money. "Personal Service Business" shall mean a business providing non - medical personal, health, beauty, or grooming services to its individual customers as a primary use including, but not limited to, day spas, hair salons, nail salons, beauty parlors and health spas. "Recognized school of massage" shall mean any school or institution of learning which teaches, through State certified instructors, the theory, ethics, practice, profession or work of massage, which school or instruction complies with California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and any and all successor statutes, and all regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and which requires a resident course of study before the student shall be furnished with a diploma or a certificate of graduation from such school or institution of learning following the successful completion of such course of study or learning; and shall further mean any similar school or institution of learning in another State of the United States which has standards and requirements equivalent to those of California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. "Specified anatomical area" shall mean human genitals, pubic region or a female breast. 5 SECTION 3. Section 6418.2 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.2. ACUPRESSURE. This Division shall also apply to the administration of acupressure, except as administered by licensed acupuncturists. SECTION 4. Section 6418.3 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.3. PERMISSIBLE MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, conduct, permit, or manage a business establishment having a fixed place of business for the sole and primary purpose of deriving income or compensation from massage therapy business activities. Massage therapy business activities shall be purely incidental and secondary to any established business. Massage therapists may operate at (a) an established medical office, including the office of a chiropractor; and (b) a personal service business. All such established businesses shall comply with all building and zoning regulations, the regulations of this Division, and all other applicable requirements of law. No person shall engage in, conduct or carry on, or permit to be engaged in, conducted or carried on, any massage therapy business, unless the massage operations are conducted within a structure located in a zone where such use is permitted. All such established businesses shall comply with all building and zoning regulations, the regulations of this Division including licensing requirements, and all other applicable requirements of law. SECTION 5. Section 6418.4 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.4. CERTIFICATION OR IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED TO CONDUCT MASSAGE THERAPY. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in massage therapy without having either a valid Massage Therapist Identification Card or a valid Massage Certificate. To ensure compliance with this Code section, upon receipt of either a Massage Therapist Identification Card or a Massage Certificate, all massage therapists must file a certified copy of either their Massage Therapist Identification Card or their Massage Certificate with the City of Arcadia Development Services Department — Business License Division. After successfully filing either their Massage Therapist Identification Card or Massage Certificate, all massage therapists will be issued a City of Arcadia Verification Card. Gl SECTION 6. Section 6418.5 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.5. BUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED. Any person owning or operating a business that provides massage therapy shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Massage Business License. Obtaining the required business license includes obtaining approval from the Department of Development Services, Planning Services, of the proposed business location. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Development Services Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact location of the business, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location. If the business will be operated by an individual who is not the owner, the owner shall provide a letter of verification, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ the operator. (B) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (C) Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (D) Driver's license number or identification number, (E) Social security number, (F) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct, (G) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents; and (c) understands the duties of owners /operators of businesses that provide massage therapy as provided in this Division, (H) Applicant's valid Massage Certificate or valid Massage Therapist Identification Card, if applicant plans to practice massage therapy. Applicants who do not show proof of either a valid Massage Certificate or a current Massage Therapist Identification Card shall also provide the following information: (A) Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, 7 (B) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (C) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (2 ") by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application, (D) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department, (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application. All applicants shall pay a nonrefundable business licensing fee sufficient to cover the costs of business licensing activities, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 7. Section 6418.6 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.6. DENIAL OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE. Within ten (10) days of the date of the notice of denial, the applicant may file an appeal to the Business Permit and License Review Board. Each appeal of a denial of a license shall be accompanied by the payment of $540 to cover the cost of the hearing and appeal. Upon the filing of an appeal, and within thirty (30) days of the date of such appeal, or as soon thereafter as possible, a hearing shall be conducted by the Board. Any Board member who has any financial interest in the outcome of the hearing or is unable to make a fair, impartial and unbiased determination shall not participate in either the hearing or in any determination or recommendation after the hearing. Prior to the hearing, City staff may, in their sole and absolute discretion, request the presence of an attorney from the City Attorney's office at the hearing, if one is not already scheduled to appear, or his/her designee, in order to present evidence on behalf of the City. During the hearing, all parties involved shall have the right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible evidence bearing upon the issues and may be represented by counsel. The Board shall not be bound by the formal rules of evidence and may require the presentation of additional evidence from any party involved. Any hearing under this Section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party or witness at the request of the permit applicant or permit holder, or any other party. Extensions of time or continuances sought by a permit applicant or permit holder shall not be considered delay on the part of the City and shall not be deemed to constitute failure by the City to provide for prompt decisions on permit denials, suspensions, or revocations. At the conclusion of the hearing, but no later than ten (10) days thereafter, the Board shall, by a majority vote of the members present at the hearing, order that the license be denied or approved, or approved contingent upon the applicant performing some action such as, but not limited to, paying a fine or penalty. 0 Within ten (10) days of receipt of any final decision by the Board, either the holder of the revoked license or applicant for the denied license, any member of the City Council, any affected City Department Head or any other business or resident of the City may appeal the decision by filing an appeal with the Board. Immediately upon receipt of such appeal, the Board shall transmit to the City Council the final decision and all findings for placement on the agenda at the first regularly scheduled Council meeting subsequent to the filing of the appeal, or as soon thereafter as possible. The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Board and may adopt them in total, hold a de novo hearing, or the City Council may amend, modify or reject the recommended decision of the Board. In addition, the City Council may send the findings and recommendations back to the Board with instructions to rehear any relevant matter not previously heard and then resubmit additional amended or modified findings to the City Council. The City Council may deny or approve the license, or impose such other or further reasonable terms, conditions or restrictions on the terms, conditions or restrictions theretofore placed on said license as the City Council finds reasonable or necessary to ensure that the business enterprise, occupation or activity will not be contrary to or inimical to or jeopardize the preservation of the public peace, safety or welfare of the City or its inhabitants, or be detrimental to other properties or businesses in its vicinity. The decision of the City Council shall be final. SECTION 8. Section 6418.7 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.7 NUMBER OF LICENSES PERMITTED. Each medical office or physical therapy office shall be limited to two (2) massage therapists per office or address, not per practitioner. Acupuncturists may not employ massage therapists or have massage therapists operate in their offices. SECTION 9. Section 6418.8 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.8. HOURS OF OPERATION. No massage therapist shall administer a massage in any established business between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The hours of operation must be displayed in a conspicuous public place within the established business. SECTION 10. Section 6418.9 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.9. BUSINESS OWNER/OPERATOR RESPONSIBILITY. All massage therapy business owners and/or operators shall be responsible for the conduct of all employees and independent contractors. Any act or omission of any employee or independent contractor constituting a violation of the provisions of this Division shall be deemed the act or omission of the business owner for purposes of determining whether the owner's license shall be revoked, suspended, denied or renewed. 9 No business owner and/or operator shall employ any person, or allow any person, to conduct a massage or act as an independent contractor conducting massage who does not have either a valid Massage Therapist Identification Card or a Massage Certificate and City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card. In order to ensure compliance with these Code provisions, no massage therapy business owners shall employ any person who has not shown them either their valid Massage Therapist Identification Card or valid Massage Certificate and City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card. SECTION 11. Section 6418.10 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.10. MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIRED IF NO MASSAGE CERTIFICATE. Any person performing massage or massage therapy without a Massage Certificate shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Massage Therapist Identification Card. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact business location at or from which the applicant will be working as a massage therapist, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location, and a letter of verification from the owner of the business, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ the applicant, and the following personal information concerning the applicant: (1) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (2) Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (3) Written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age, (4) Height, weight, color of hair and eyes, and gender, (5) Driver's license number or identification number, (6) Social security number, (7) The occupation and employment history of the applicant, including, without limitation, names, addresses and telephone numbers of all employers, for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application, 10 (8) The complete permit history of the applicant concerning massage or massage therapy services provided by the applicant, including, without limitation, whether the applicant has ever had any license or permit, issued by any agency, board, City, or other jurisdiction, denied, revoked or suspended, and if so, the date, location and reason for the denial, revocation or suspension, (9) Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, (10) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (11) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct, (12) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents; and (c) understands the duties of a massage therapist as provided in this Division; (B) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (2 ") by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application; (C) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department; (D) A certified copy of the applicant's diploma or certificate of graduation and certified transcript of graduation for completion of five hundred (500) hours of instruction from a recognized school of massage; (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application; (F) The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee at the time of filing an application, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 12. Section 6418.11 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.11. PROCESSING THE APPLICATION. All Massage Therapist Identification Card applications, together with the application fee, shall be submitted to the Arcadia Police Department. 11 Following the determination by the Chief of Police that the application is complete, the Chief of Police shall conduct an investigation, in such manner as deemed appropriate, in order to ascertain whether such application should be approved as requested. Once it is deemed complete, the Chief of Police shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application, within fifteen (15) business days, unless delayed by fingerprint checking or other facts which require additional investigation to determine the qualifications of the applicant. If the investigation requires processing beyond the fifteen (15) business day limit, the applicant shall be notified of the delay by mail prior to the expiration of the fifteen (15) business days. SECTION 13. Section 6418.12 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.12. ISSUANCE OF IDENTIFICATION CARD. The Chief of Police shall issue a Massage Therapist Identification Card if there are no grounds to disapprove the application as set forth in Section 6418.13 of this Division. SECTION 14. Section 6418.13 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.13. DISAPPROVAL OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD. If the Massage Therapist Identification Card application is denied, the Chief of Police shall provide written notice of the disapproval to the applicant. In cases where the Chief of Police does not respond to the applicant within fifteen (15) business days after the application is deemed complete, the application shall automatically be deemed disapproved on the sixteenth (16th) business day after the application was submitted and deemed complete. If the application is disapproved, the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for any Massage Therapist Identification Card or Massage Business License within the City of Arcadia for a minimum of one (1) year from the date the application was disapproved. The application shall be disapproved if the Chief of Police finds any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The applicant is not eighteen (18) years of age or older; (B) The application is incomplete or any required information or document has not been provided with the application; (C) The applicant has made one (1) or more false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact on the application or during the application process; (D) The applicant has, within ten (10) years preceding the date of the application, been convicted of disqualifying conduct, or of a lesser included offense; 12 (E) The applicant is required to register as a sex offender; (F) The applicant has not met the requirements of this Division; (G) The granting of the identification card or license would pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare; (H) The applicant has been convicted of an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or moral turpitude, or an act of violence, which act or acts are substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a massage therapist; (I) The applicant has, within five (5) years preceding the date of application, had a massage therapist permit or similar permit or license denied, suspended or revoked for cause by a Licensing Authority, City, County or State. SECTION 15. Section 6418.14 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.14. RENEWAL OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD. A massage therapist shall annually apply for renewal of the Massage Therapist Identification Card on forms provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The massage therapist applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application renewal fee at the time of filing a renewal application in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. SECTION 16. Section 6418.15 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.15. RENEWAL OF MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS LICENSE. Owners and/or operators of businesses that provide massage therapy shall annually apply for renewal of their Massage Business License. The owner and/or operator applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application renewal fee at the time of filing a renewal application in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. The owner of a business that provides massage therapy shall maintain a current business license. Any owner and/or operator who currently possesses a business license allowing them to operate a massage therapy business must, upon time for the renewal of their license, apply for a Massage Business License, supplying the information as required in Section 6418.5 of this Division. SECTION 17. Section 6418.16 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 13 6418.16. TRANSFER OF LICENSE. No Massage Therapist Identification Card or Massage Therapy Business License shall be sold or transferred to any other person or persons. SECTION 18. Section 6418.17 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.17. CHANGE OF INFORMATION. If, during the term of a Massage Therapist Identification Card or Massage Therapy Business License, a massage therapist or an owner and/or operator has any change of information submitted on the original application or license renewal application, the massage therapist shall notify the Arcadia Police Department and the Business License Officer of such change in writing within ten (10) business days thereafter. SECTION 19. Section 6418.18 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.18. CESSATION OF MASSAGE THERAPY SERVICES. The massage therapist is required to notify the Business License Office by written notice, filed within fifteen (15) business days after the last date of the performance or offering of massage therapy services, if he or she no longer performs or offers massage therapy services in the City of Arcadia. SECTION 20. Section 6418.19 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.19. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. (A) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to expose or touch the genitals or anal area, or the breast of any female, whether his or her own, or those of another person. (B) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to engage in any sexual activities. (C) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to be in a state of nudity or semi - nudity. (D) No massage therapist shall provide or offer to provide any massage therapy services to a minor unless the minor's parent or legal guardian provides written permission. 14 (E) No person shall enter, be in, or remain in, any area where massage therapy services are offered or performed while in the possession of, consuming, using or under the influence of, any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance. Service of alcoholic beverages shall not be permitted at any established business where massage therapy services are being performed. (F) Patrons shall not be prohibited from the use of, or possession of, cellular phones, pagers or any communication devices while massage therapy services are being offered or performed. (G) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to wear or have in their possession such items as nightgowns, negligees, bathrobes, sex paraphernalia or condoms. Every business owner and/or operator shall assure that such items are not being kept, possessed, stored or used on the business premises. (H) No electrical, mechanical or artificial device shall be used for audio and/or video recording or for monitoring the performance of a massage, or the conversation or other sounds in any massage room. SECTION 21. Section 6418.20 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.20. OPERATIONS. (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shall at all times while on the massage therapy business premises have in his or her possession either the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division or their Massage Certificate, a valid photo identification, and their City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and/or operator shall at all times while on the massage therapy business premises have in his or her possession a copy of the Business License required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each owner or operator of a massage therapy business shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to uniforms worn in medical offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in massage. 15 (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron's specified anatomical areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed, any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi - nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (I) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of either each Business License or each Massage Therapist Identification Card, shall be deemed to consent to the reasonable inspection of the business premises during regular business hours by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (M) Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. (1) Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. 16 (0) Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18 "). Two - inch (2 ") thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4') may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (P) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minim length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (Q) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible to any person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: THIS MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE MASSAGE ROOMS DO NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE PRIVACY AND ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE. (R) Roster of Employees. The business owner and/or operator shall maintain a register of all massage therapists and employees, showing the name, nicknames and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) years following termination. The business owner and/or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately for inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (S) Records of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 17 SECTION 22. Section 6418.21 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.21. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD AND BUSINESS LICENSE. The Licensing Authority shall suspend or revoke a Massage Therapist Identification Card and Business License for any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The administering of massage therapy services has been conducted in a manner that does not comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, this Division and the City's building and zoning regulations; (B) The license holder has violated a provision of this Division; (C) The license holder is convicted of any disqualifying conduct or is required to register as a sex offender; (D) Information contained in the approved application is false, misleading or fraudulent; (E) The license holder refuses to allow representatives of the City to inspect business records or any premises utilized by the licensee for massage therapy services; (F) The license holder has ceased to meet any of the requirements of this Division. In the event of suspension or revocation of a license or card issued under this Division, the Licensing Authority shall send to the license holder a revocation or suspension notice ten (10) business days prior to the effective date of suspension or revocation. The license and/or card shall be deemed revoked or suspended on the eleventh (11th) business day after the City mails or otherwise delivers notice of suspension or revocation. SECTION 23. Section 6418.22 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.22. RETURN OF LICENSE CERTIFICATE AND IDENTIFICATION CARD. If a Business License or Massage Therapist Identification Card is suspended or revoked, the license certificate and identification card shall be returned to the Licensing Authority no later than the end of the third (3rd) business day after the effective date of suspension or revocation. SECTION 24. Section 6418.23 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 18 6418.23. APPEALS. Within ten (10) days of the date of the notice of suspension or revocation, the applicant may file an appeal to the Business Permit and License Review Board. Upon the filing of an appeal, and within thirty (30) days of the date of such appeal, or as soon thereafter as possible, a hearing shall be conducted by the Board. Any Board member who has any financial interest in the outcome of the hearing or is unable to make a fair, impartial and unbiased determination shall not participate in either the hearing or in any determination or recommendation after the hearing. Prior to the hearing, City staff may, in their sole and absolute discretion, request the presence of an attorney from the City Attorney's office at the hearing, if one is not already scheduled to appear, or his/her designee, in order to present evidence on behalf of the City. During the hearing, all parties involved shall have the right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible evidence bearing upon the issues and may be represented by counsel. The Board shall not be bound by the formal rules of evidence and may require the presentation of additional evidence from any party involved. Any hearing under this Section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party or witness at the request of the permit applicant or permit holder, or any other party. Extensions of time or continuances sought by a permit applicant or permit holder shall not be considered a delay on the part of the City and shall not be deemed to constitute failure by the City to provide for prompt decisions on permit denials, suspensions, or revocations. At the conclusion of the hearing, but no later than ten (10) days thereafter, the Board shall, by a majority vote of the members present at the hearing, order that the license be denied or approved, or approved contingent upon the applicant performing some remedial action such as, but not limited to, paying a fine or penalty. Within ten (10) days of receipt of any final decision by the Board, either the holder of the revoked license or applicant for the denied license, any member of the City Council, any affected City Department Head or any other business or resident of the City may appeal the decision by filing an appeal with the Board. Immediately upon receipt of such appeal, the Board shall transmit to the City Council the final decision and all findings for placement on the agenda at the first regularly scheduled Council meeting subsequent to the filing of the appeal, or as soon thereafter as possible. The City Council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the Board and may adopt them in total, hold a de novo hearing, or the City Council may amend, modify or reject the recommended decision of the Board. In addition, the City Council may send the findings and recommendations back to the Board with instructions to rehear any relevant matter not previously heard and then resubmit additional amended or modified findings to the City Council. The City Council may deny or approve the license, or impose such other or further reasonable terms, conditions or restrictions on the terms, conditions or restrictions theretofore placed on said license as the City Council finds reasonable or necessary to ensure that the business enterprise, occupation or activity will not be contrary to or inimical to or jeopardize the preservation of the public peace, safety or welfare of the City or its inhabitants, or be detrimental to other properties or businesses in its vicinity. The decision of the City Council shall be final. 19 SECTION 25. Section 6418.24 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.24. REAPPLICATION AFTER REVOCATION. An applicant for either a license or an identification card under this Division whose license or identification card has been revoked may not reapply for such license or identification card for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation or other such time as the Board or City Council deems prudent. However, the applicant may reapply prior to five (5) years if the applicant provides clear and convincing evidence that the ground or grounds for revocation no longer exist. SECTION 26. Section 6418.25 of Article VI, Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.25. EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this Division, with the exception of those provisions relating to massage therapy business ownership, shall not apply to any of the following: (A) State licensed physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, physical therapists, osteopaths, or any registered or licensed vocational nurses working on the premises of, and under the direct supervision of, a State licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath; (B) Barbers, beauticians, manicurists and pedicurists who are duly licensed under the laws of the State of California, except that this exemption shall apply solely to the massaging of the scalp, face, neck, arms, hands, or feet of the client for cosmetic or beautifying purposes; (C) Athletic trainers certified by the State of California performing training services for professionals, amateur or school athletic events or practices; and (D) Duly licensed businesses and government agencies only with respect to on -site massage therapy services which are offered and provided at the expense of the business or government agency, or at the expense of their employees, exclusively to their respective employees, and not to the general public, solely as a benefit of employment. Massage therapy provided hereunder must be provided by a person who (1) is a massage therapist, as defined in this Division, who maintains either a valid Massage Certificate or valid Massage Therapist Identification Card, or (2) qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Subsections (A), (B) or (C) of this Section. SECTION 27. Section 6211 of Article VI, Chapter 2, Division 1 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 20 6211. LICENSE REQUIRED. There are imposed upon the business. trades, professions, callings and occupations specified in this Division license taxes in the amounts hereinafter prescribed. No person shall engage in business or transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation in the City, without first having procured a license from the City so to do and without fully complying with any and all other provisions of this Code. This Section does not apply to adult businesses; the regulation and permitting of adult businesses and the licensing of the trades, professions, callings, and occupations thereof involved are separately enacted and provided for in Sections 9279 and 6700 et seq. of this Code. This Section also does not apply to massage therapy businesses; the regulation and permitting of massage therapy businesses are separately enacted and provided for in Sections 6418 et. seq. of this Code. SECTION 28. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a copy of the same to be published in the official newspaper of said City within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2009. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen Deitsch City Attorney Mayor of the City of Arcadia 21 ATTACHMENT B 6418. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The City of Arcadia is authorized, by virtue of the State Constitution and Section 51031 of the Government Code, to regulate massage therapists by inVesiwmditioning the issuance of a license to engage in the business of massage on reasonable standards relative to their skill and experience, and to regulate owners and operators of massage therapy businesses to ensure the safety of clients receiving massage therapy. While the City Council recognizes that section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code lives those individuals who are certified pursuant to chanter 10.5 of the Business and Profess'ons Code the right to practice massage the City Council also finds that section 4612 of the Business and Professions Code gives the City the right to adopt reasonable business licensing and health and safety requirements for massage establishments and businesses. The City Council finds and determines that licensing standards pertaining to massage therapy business activities are necessary to protect the public health and safety and the personal safety of massage therapists. The City Council further finds that the public health and safety are best served by the adoption of an ordinance providing for regulation of massage therapy business activities in a manner that is consistent throughout the City of Arcadia. The establishment of reasonable standards for issuance of a license and restrictions on massage therapy business activities would serve to reduce the risk of illegal activities. There is a significant risk of injury to massage clients by improperly trained and/or uneducated massage therapists and this Division provides reasonable safeguards against injury and economic loss. 6418.1. DEFINITIONS. L':Acupressure -"_' shall mean the stimulation or sedation of specific meridian points and trigger points near the surface of the body by the use of pressure applied in order to prevent or modify perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, in the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body. "Acupuncture" means the stimulation of a certain point or points on or near the surface of the body by the insertion of needles to prevent or modify the perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions including pain control for the treatment of certain diseases or dysfungtions of the body and includes the techniques of electroacupuncture, cupping. and moxibustion. "Acupuncturist" means an individual to whom a license has been issued to practice acupuncture pursuant to chapter 12 of the Business and Professions Code_ which is in effect and is nc,t suspended or revoked. "_`Applicant"_' means the individual seeking a permit business license pursuant to this Division. "`_`Certified copyL." shall mean a copy of a document that is certified by the issuer as being a true and accurate copy of the original document or a similar document bearing an original signature of the issuer. "_`Chief of Police'-"_' means the Chief of Police of the City of Arcadia, or his or her designated representative. "City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card" shall mean the card issued -by the City of Arcadia after receiving a certified cony of a massage therapist's massage certificate which verifies the massage therwist ability to practice massage in the City of Arcadia ' "_`City regulatory officials - " shall mean the City's Licensing Authority, Building and Planning Services, Code Services Officers, Fire Department and the Police Department. - 'disqualifying conduct'-T' means any of the following: (A) Pandering; (B) Keeping or residing in a house of ill -fame; (C) Keeping a house for the purpose of assignation or prostitution, or other disorderly house; (D) Prevailing upon a person to visit a place of illegal gambling or prostitution; (E) Lewd conduct; (F) Prostitution activities; (G) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony; (H) Any felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (1) Any offense committed in any other State which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punishable as a felony offense involving the sale of any controlled substance; (J) Any misdemeanor or felony offense which relates directly to the practice of massage therapy, whether as a massage therapy business owner or operator, or as a massage therapist; or (K) Any felony the commission of which occurred on the business premises where Message massage therapy services are performed. ' $mploy - - "_' shall include, without limitation, contracting with independent contractors as well as hiring or employing persons. L' employee -"_' shall include, without limitation, independent contractors and persons hired or employed by an operator or owner of a massage therapy business. *iealth Department'-"_' mean s the 14eaM SeFyiess Ageney e the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services "Lieense" sha4l mean the keense te eper-eAe a massage therapy business in the G4y of! ��&dia. -L"'Licensing Authority"" shall mean the Business License Officer or the designated official responsible for issuing, revoking and otherwise administering the provisions of this Division. !!"Massage-' or - massage erapy shall mean any method of pressure on, or faction against, or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding, vibrating, or stimulating the external parts of, the human body with the hands or with the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appliance, with or without supplementary aids such as creams, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in the practice of massage, under such circumstances that it is reasonably expected that the person to whom the treatment is provided or some third person on his or her behalf will pay money or give any other consideration or any gratuity therefor. 2 "Massage Business License" or "Business License" or "License" shall mean the City of Arcadia business li cense required to be applied for and obtained by anyone wishing to own or operate a massage therapy business "Macsaae Certificate" shall mean a certificate issued pursuant to section 4601 (al of the Business and Professions Code (Chapter 10_.5 commencing with Section 4600). !- 'Nassage therapist''-" ' shall mean any person who, for any consideration whatsoever, performs or offers to perform a massage in a massage therapy business. 'Massage therapy business" shall mean both massage establishments or b_usine es that are sole proprietorships where the sole proprietor has either a Massage C cr ti fi or a Mace e Therapist Identification Card and massage establishments or businesses that employ or use only persons that haye_either_a Massage Ca ific to or a MassaoP Therapist Ido ifiration Card to provide massage services. "Massage Therapist Identification Card" shall mean a card issued by the City of Arcadia which allows the holder of the card to practice massage in the City. L'Ninor"" means any individual under the age of eighteen (18) years. "Nudity"'_' or "`_`semi- nudity"'_' shall mean any of the following: (A) The appearance or display of an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast; or (B) A state of undress which less than completely covers an anus, male or female genital, pubic region or a female breast. L"_`Operator "_' or- "`owner "_' means the individual(s) who are responsible for the management and/or supervision of a massage therapy business. Whenever the term owner or operator is used in this Division, it shall be deemed to include, without limitation, the manager of any massage therapy business. 2atron" _' shall mean any person who receives a massage in exchange for any form of consideration including, but not limited to, the payment of money. "Personal Service Business" shall mean a business providing non - medical personal. health_ beauty or grooming services to its individual cu9 mers as a primary use including, but not limited to, day spas, hair salons nail salons beauty parlors and he h as 'recognized school of massagel" _' shall mean any school or institution of learning which teaches, through State certified instructors, the theory, ethics, practice, profession or work of massage, which school or instruction complies with California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and any and all successor statutes, and all regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and which requires a resident course of study before the student shall be furnished with a diploma or a certificate of graduation from such school or institution of learning following the successful completion of such course of study or learning; and shall further mean any similar school or institution of learning in another State of the United States which has standards and requirements equivalent to those of California Education Code Sections 94700 through 94999 and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. "`_`Specified anatomical area' - "_' shall mean human genitals, pubic region or a female breast. 6418.2. ACUPRESSURE. This Division shall also apply to the administration of acupressure except as administered by licensed acupuncturists 6418.3. PERMISSIBLE MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, conduct, permit, or manage a business establishment having a fixed place of business for the sole and primary purpose of deriving income or compensation from massage therapy business activities. Massage therapy business activities shall be purely incidental and secondary to any established business. Massage therapists may operate at (a) an established medical office, including liakiea, -affitmhe office of an aeuptmetu6st e a physical therapist or chiropractor; and (b) a personal service business. en. All such established businesses shall comply with all building and zoning regulations, the regulations of this Division, and all other applicable requirements of law. AT. the s hall 1.,. :stn • nr4 1,1;j—A 1.., massage ,, f9 -00 r a nd 7 0 ar T10 ha s e"reper-MHen -ffwst "r tai -sp o�' a eof tsJN4 -z yeti 1)+ e plaee:withiin the established business-. I • 1.11 • . 1. 1_ • _ • 1\ _ Y 1_ • \ K I _. \_.._ wwp- Any person owning or operating a business that provides massage therapy shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a .M Business License_ Obtaining the required business license includes obtaining approval from the Department of Development Services. Planning Services of the proposed business location. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Dep eat. R ff onment Sir dM U ment. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact location of the business, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location. Op Hers If the business will be operated by an individual who is not the ownm the owner shall provide a letter of verification -free ewaef ef the business, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ or contract with the (B ) AppfieaMr, "I also pfev4de the fblio-A4ag infemation: ) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (2Q Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (3L2) Driver's license number or identification number, (41;) Social security number, A F-11 . A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct. (G) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents: and (c) understands the duties of owners /operators of businesses that provide m_ a_ssage therapy as provided in lisi Division. (H) Applicant's valid Massage Certificate or valid Massage Therapist Identification Card. if aeelicant plans to practice massage therapy. Applicants who do not show proof of either a valid Massage Certificate or a current _M._assage Therapist Identification Card shall also provide the following information: W Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, (Ql) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (7) .4. statement i - -and dated by the app. eei4if�4fig unde" of pe�ur eenta ;,, the „heat;,,r is tfue B eet (,8) � sty eavA eei4i6i unde 1 t 8 fpeijt ,fiat -he er -slier ( h Feee e f 4his-- Divisi j , d sands its „ a„a (e) mder the dut vi6 rfi ers Of bu s i nes s es *at-pHv3d2-m••ssage t - ap y-a s pro vided i Dom;(C) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (2-':-) by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application; (D) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department;, (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application; (F) The &ppIieaatAU&224= shall pay a nonrefundable appheafien fee at the time of filing an appheatienbusiness licensing fee sufficient to cover the costs of business licensing activities, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. -0 MWITIMM WITTIF. "M RIVIRMIMINIFIM I -0--a TOM dPoRM RIM No massage therapist shall administer a massage in any established busi between the hour of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The hours of operation must be displayed in _a conspicuous public place within the established business SECTION 10 Section 6418.9 of Article VI. Chapter 4, Division 8 of the Arcadia Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 6418.9. BUSINESS O'WNERIOPgRATOIt RF SPONSIB1Llr1 "Y All massage therapy business owners and /or operators shall be responsible for the conduct of all e_ to i de endent contractors_ Any act or omission of any employee or in pendent contractor constituting a violation of the provisions of this Division shall be deemed the act or omission of the business owner for purposes of detennining whether the owner's license shall be revoked, suspend, deniW or renewed. 541$,1 MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIRED IF NO MASSAGE CERTIFICATE Any person performing massage or massage therapy without a Massage Certificate shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Massage Therapist Identification Card. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact business location at or from which the applicant will be working as a massage therapist, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with . ��. • •� • U. KL1 !. 541$,1 MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD REQUIRED IF NO MASSAGE CERTIFICATE Any person performing massage or massage therapy without a Massage Certificate shall apply for and obtain from the City of Arcadia a Massage Therapist Identification Card. The applicant shall file a written application on the required form provided by the Arcadia Police Department. The following information, documents and other requirements shall be included with the submission of such application: (A) A statement of the exact business location at or from which the applicant will be working as a massage therapist, including the full street address and all telephone numbers associated with said location, and a letter of verification from the owner of the business, signed and dated, indicating the intent to employ or contract with the applicant, and the following personal information concerning the applicant: (1) Full name, and all aliases used by the applicant, along with complete residence address and telephone number, (2) Previous residential addresses for five (5) years immediately preceding the current address of the applicant, (3) Written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age, (4) Height, weight, color of hair and eyes, and gender, (5) Driver's license number or identification number, (6) Social security number, (7) The occupation and employment history of the applicant, including, without limitation, names, addresses and telephone numbers of all employers, for the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of application, (8) The complete permit history of the applicant concerning massage or massage therapy services provided by the applicant, including, without limitation, whether the applicant has ever had any license or permit, issued by any agency, board, City, or other jurisdiction, denied, revoked or suspended, and if so, the date, location and reason for the denial, revocation or suspension, (9) Whether or not the applicant is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, (10) All criminal convictions, including pleas of nolo contendere (no contest), within the last ten (10) years, including, without limitation, those dismissed or expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4, but excluding minor traffic violations; and the date and place of each such conviction, (11) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that all information contained in the application is true and correct, (12) A statement in writing and dated by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that he or she: (a) has received a copy of this Division; (b) understands its contents; and (c) understands the duties of a massage therapist as provided in this Division; (B) Two (2) front -face portrait photographs at least two inches (2 ") by two inches (2 ") in size taken within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application; (C) A complete set of fingerprints taken on the date of application by the Arcadia Police Department; (D) A certified copy of the applicant's diploma or certificate of graduation and certified transcript of graduation for completion of five hundred (500) hours of instruction from a recognized school of massage. , pr-ier- to its eKpk"ea, a pemik obtained &era the City pr-ier- to t—bee eff-eefive date ef Seefien 6418.7- w fewef- then five hundred (5 00) hetws of instmetien; pr-evided, hewever-, diet the requirement fer- -a of five htm&ed (500) hews of iwAmefien "I apply to my ead all subsequ (E) Such other information and identification as the Chief of Police may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified and as required to be set forth in the application; (F) The applicant shall pay a nonrefundable application fee at the time of filing an application, in the amount established by resolution of the City Council. 0 64I$�: 6418.11• PROCESSING THE APPLICATION. All Massage Therapist 1denfifieation GaFd applieatiens, and Business Ov'%er4oper-ae Identification Card applications, together with the application fee, shall be submitted to the Arcadia Police Department. Following the determination by the Chief of Police that the application is complete, the Chief of Police shall conduct an investigation, in such manner as deemed appropriate, in order to ascertain whether such application should be approved as requested. Once it is deemed complete, the Chief of Police shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the application, within fifteen (15) business days, unless delayed by fingerprint checking or other facts which require additional investigation to determine the qualifications of the applicant. If the investigation requires processing beyond the fifteen (15) business day limit, the applicant shall be notified of the delay by mail prior to the expiration of the fifteen (15) business days. 14 IT= R - R• - • a • .I F • I • 64184 -0 6418.12. ISSUANCE OF IDENTIFICATION CARD. The Chief of Police shall issue a Massage Therapist Identification Card of a-Business Gard-if there are no grounds to disapprove the application as set forth in Seefiens 6418.16 and 64 Section 6418.13 of this Division. Y. � R • • •._ - •. 10 ( C ) > ye > ; E r- welfiffe; > fi ffiU d , tufpitade > > ()- a > > denied , or- State. 6 4'�7. DISAPPROVAL OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD. If the Massage Therapist Identification Card application is denied, the Chief of Police shall provide written notice of the disapproval to the applicant. In cases where the Chief of Police does not respond to the applicant within fifteen (15) business days after the application is deemed complete, the application shall automatically be deemed disapproved on the sixteenth (16th) business day after the application was submitted and deemed complete. If the application is disapproved, the applicant shall not be eligible to apply for any Massage Therapist Identification Card or MIU Business License within the City of Arcadia for a minimum of one (1) year from the date the application was disapproved. The application shall be disapproved if the Chief of Police finds any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The applicant is not eighteen (18) years of age or older; (B) The application is incomplete or any required information or document has not been provided with the application; (C) The applicant has made one (1) or more false, misleading or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact on the application or during the application process; (D) The applicant has, within ten (10) years preceding the date of the application, been convicted of disqualifying conduct, or of a lesser included offense; (E) The applicant is required to register as a sex offender; (F) The applicant has not met the requirements of this Division; (G) The granting of the identification card or license would pose a threat to public health, safety or welfare; (H) The applicant has been convicted of an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or moral turpitude, or an act of violence, which act or acts are substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a massage therapist; (I) The applicant has, within five (5) years preceding the date of application, had a massage therapist permit or similar permit or license denied, suspended or revoked for cause by a Licensing Authority, City, County or State. P3514) I (Glen 74MIT472TWU "W3 12 The massage therapist is required to notify the Business License Office by written notice filed within fifteen (151 business days after the last date of the performance or offering of massage t erapy services, if he or she no longer performs or offers massage therapy services in the City of Arcadia-. 6418.19. P ROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. (A) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to expose or touch the genitals or anal area, or the breast of any female, whether his or her own, or those of another person. (B) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to engage in any sexual activities. (C) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to be in a state of nudity or semi - nudity. (D) No massage therapist shall provide or offer to provide any massage therapy services to a minor unless the minor's parent or legal guardian provides written permission. (E) No person shall enter, be in, or remain in, any area where massage therapy services are offered or performed while in the possession of, consuming, using or under the influence of, any alcoholic beverage or controlled substance. Service of alcoholic beverages shall not be permitted at any established business where massage therapy services are being performed. (F) Patrons shall not be prohibited from the use of, or possession of, cellular phones, pagers or any communication devices while massage therapy services are being offered or performed. (G) It is unlawful for any massage therapist, employee, patron, or any other person present where massage therapy services are being offered or performed, to wear or have in their possession such items as nightgowns, negligees, bathrobes, sex paraphernalia or condoms. Every business owner and/or operator shall assure that such items are not being kept, possessed, stored or used on the business premises. (H) No electrical, mechanical or artificial device shall be used for audio and/or video recording or for monitoring the performance of a massage, or the conversation or other sounds in any massage room. 6418:19. 6418.20. OPERATIONS. (A) Identification Cards. Each massage therapist shall at all times While on the massage therapy business premises have in his or her possession either the Massage Therapist Identification Card required by this Division eor their Massage Certificate. a valid photo 14 identification. and their City of Arcadia Massage Verification Card. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. Each owner and/or operator shall at all times while on the massage theranv business premises have in his or her possession a cony of dLc R si=ss License required by this Division and a valid photo identification. Such card and identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. (B) Display of License. Each owner or operator of a m assage dWaPiGt theranv business shall display the Business License Certificate issued pursuant to this Division in an open and conspicuous place on the business premises where massage therapy services are performed. (C) Clothing. Each massage therapist and all other employees shall be fully clothed at all times. Clothing shall be fully opaque, nontransparent uniforms, similar to uniforms worn in medical offices, and shall provide complete covering of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, anal area and chest area. (D) Sterilizing Equipment. Each massage therapist shall provide and maintain at the business location where the massage is performed adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in massage. (E) Covering. Each massage therapist shall provide to all patrons clean, sanitary and opaque coverings capable of covering the patron's specified anatomical areas, including the genital, anus and chest area. Reuse is prohibited unless the covering is adequately cleaned. (F) Linen. Towels and linen shall be changed and laundered promptly after each use. Separate cabinets or containers shall be provided for the storage of clean and soiled towels and linen. (G) Advertising. No massage therapist operating under this Division shall place, publish or distribute, or cause to be placed, published or distributed, any advertising matter that depicts nudity or semi - nudity or employs language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any other services are available other than those services authorized by this Division. (H) Discrimination. No massage therapist may discriminate or exclude patrons on the basis of their race, sex, religion, age, handicap or any other classification protected under federal or state laws, rules or regulations. (I) Inspections and Searches. The business owner /operator, and massage therapist, as a condition to the issuance of either each Business L icense or each Massage Therapist Identification Card, , hall be deemed to consent to the reasonable insp ection of the business premises during regular business hours by the City Development Services Department, Fire Department, Police Department and the Los Angeles County Health Department for the purpose of determining that the provisions of this Division or other applicable laws or regulations are met. (J) Lighting. The lighting in each massage room shall be at least one (1) sixty -watt white light bulb and shall be activated at all times while a patron is in such room or enclosure. No strobe flashing lights may be used. No colored lights shall be used nor shall any coverings be used which change the color of the primary light source. (K) Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. (L) Building Permits. All building, plumbing and electrical installations shall be installed under permit and inspected by the Development Services Department. Such installations shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the building and construction codes adopted by the City of Arcadia. 15 pfevided fer- patfens. Seap ef detergent and het funning water- shall be pr-evided to pa4Feas and seap, and a single sef-Aee towel dispenser- shall be pr-evided at the r-estme hand wash sink. Ne WE soap may be used. A tmsh r-eeeptaele shall be pfe-Aded in eaeh toilet Feem. QM Separate Rooms. If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously, the following shall be provided: separate treatment rooms, separate dressing rooms and separate toilet facilities for each patron. Q Maintenance. All facilities where massage therapy services are offered must be in good repair and shall be thoroughly cleaned and sanitized each day the business is in operation. All walls, floors and ceilings of each restroom and shower area shall be easily cleanable. (Q� Massage Table. A massage table shall be provided in each massage room or enclosure and the massage shall be performed on this massage table. The tables shall have a minimum height of eighteen inches (18-"x. Two -inch (V' -' thick foam pads with maximum width of four feet (4'-D may be used on a massage table and must be covered with durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material. Beds, floor mattresses and waterbeds are not permitted on the business premises. (Q) Door-s. No massage therapy serviees sW! be given wid3in &qy mem er- enelesufe d is €iced ' upAeeked dur:ng business hews. P(__) Posting. Each service offered, the price thereof and the minim length of time such service is performed shall be posted in a conspicuous public location on the business premises. No services shall be performed and no sums shall be charged for such services other than those posted. (S) Notices. The following notice shall be conspicuously posted in a location within the business where massage therapy services are performed that is easily visible to any person entering the premises and in each massage room or enclosure: INCOOPERAT-ION44 [THIS MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT AND THE MASSAGE ROOMS DO NOT PROVIDE COMPLETE PRIVACY AND ARE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE ARCADIA POLICE DEPARTMENT OUR DOOM ARE TO RENWN A-1 -1 TIMES FOR PERdODIC INSPECTION TO INSUPrE OUR (B) Roster of Employees. The business owner and/or operator shall maintain a register of all massage therapists and employees, showing the name, nicknames and aliases used by the massage therapist or employee, home address, age, birth date, gender, height, weight, color of hair and eyes, phone numbers, social security number, date of employment and termination, if any, and duties of each employee. The above information concerning each massage therapist and employee shall be maintained at the premises of the business for a period of two (2) years following termination. The business owner and/or operator shall make the register of massage therapists and employees available immediately for inspection by the City regulatory officials upon demand at all reasonable times. (5) Records of Treatment. The business owner and/or operator shall keep a record of the dates and hours of each treatment or service, the name and address of the patron, the name of the massage therapist administering such service and a description of the treatment or service 16 rendered. A short medical history form shall be completed by the massage therapist to determine if the patron has any communicable diseases, areas of pain, high blood pressure or any physical condition that may be adversely affected by massage. These records shall be prepared prior to administering any massage or treatment, and shall be retained for a period of twenty -four (24) months after such treatment or service. These records shall be open to inspection upon demand only by officials charged with enforcement of this Division and for no other purpose. The City regulatory officials shall periodically inspect the records to ensure compliance with this Division. Such records shall be kept at the business. The information furnished or secured as a result of any such records shall be used only to ensure and enforce compliance with this Division, or any other applicable State or Federal laws, and shall remain confidential. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City shall constitute a misdemeanor. 1 • 1\ • • • _ • Ar • _ P • 1\ _ Y 1_ • . Y. \ FA WIN Y. . \ 6418.21. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF MASSAGE THERAPIST IDENTIFICATION CARD AND BUSINESS LICENSE. The Licensing Authority shall suspend or revoke a Massage Therapist Identification Card and Business License for any one (1) or more of the following: (A) The administering of massage therapy services has been conducted in a manner that does not comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, this Division and the City's building and zoning regulations; (B) The license holder has violated a provision of this Division; (C) The license holder is convicted of any disqualifying conduct or is required to register as a sex offender; (D) Information contained in the approved application is false, misleading or fraudulent; 17 (E) The license holder refuses to allow representatives of the City to inspect business records or any premises utilized by the licensee for massage therapy services; (F) The license holder has ceased to meet any of the requirements of this Division. In the event of suspension or revocation of a license or card issued under this Division, the Licensing Authority shall send to the license holder a revocation or suspension notice ten (10) business days prior to the effective date of suspension or revocation. The license and/or card shall be deemed revoked or suspended on the eleventh (11th) business day after the City mails or otherwise delivers notice of suspension or revocation. M-110 NITFIF17nnnnn'4444 6418.22. RETURN OF LICENSE CERTIFICATE AND IDENTIFICATION CARD. If a Business License-, Massage Therapist Identification Card, • pew is suspended or revoked, the license certificate and identification card shall be returned to the Licensing Authority no later than the end of the third (3rd) business day after the effective date of suspension or revocation. •• - • MI - Ot - 1 • - • •. 6418.23. APPEALS. 11111 M-M 15 W] 6418.24. REAPPLICATION AFTER REVOCATION. An applicant for either a license or an identification card under this Division whose license or identification card has been revoked may not reapply for such license or identification card for a period of five (5) years from the date of revocation or other such time as the Board or Citv Council deems prudent. However, the applicant may reapply prior to five (5) years if the applicant provides clear and convincing evidence that the ground or grounds for revocation no longer exist. 6418.25. EXEMPTIONS. The provisions of this Divisi o with the exception of se .. those provisions relating to massage therapy business ownership shall not apply to any of the following: 19 (A) State licensed physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, physical therapists, osteopaths, or any registered or licensed vocational nurses working on the premises of, and under the direct supervision of, a State licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath; (B) Barbers, beauticians, manicurists and pedicurists who are duly licensed under the laws of the State of California, except that this exemption shall apply solely to the massaging of the scalp, face, neck, arms, hands, or feet of the client for cosmetic or beautifying purposes; (C) Athletic trainers certified by the State of California performing training services for professionals, amateur or school athletic events or practices; and (D) Duly licensed businesses and government agencies only with respect to on -site massage therapy services which are offered and provided at the expense of the business or government agency, or at the expense of their employees, exclusively to their respective employees, and not to the general public, solely as a benefit of employment. Massage therapy provided hereunder must be provided by a person who (1) is a massage therapist, as defined in this Division, who maintains neither a valid Massage Certificate or valid Massage Therapist Identification Card -as set feAh in Seetion ,� or (2) qualifies for an exemption pursuant to Subsections (A), (B) or (C) of this Section. (Division 8 added by Ord. 2163 adopted 11 -5 -02; amended in its entirety by Ord. 2175 adopted 5 -6 -03; amended in its entirety by Ord. 2215 adopted 5- 20 -06; amended by Ord. 2235 adopted 1- 15-08) 6211. LICENSE REQUIRED. There are imposed upon the business trades, professions, callings and occupations specified in this Division license taxes in the amounts hereinafter prescribed. No person shall engage in business or transact and carry on any business, trade, profession, calling or occupation in the City, without first having procured a license from the City so to do and without fully complying with any and all other provisions of this Code. This Section does not apply to adult businesses; the regulation and permitting of adult businesses and the licensing of the trades, professions, callings, and occupations thereof involved are separately enacted and provided for in Sections 9279 and 6700 et seq. _ this Code. This Section also does not apply to massage t herany b usines es: the regulation and permitting of massage theranv businesses are separately enacted of this Code. 'PRI Document com arison done by DeltaView on Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:59:14 AM � 7 _1 Document 1 cdocs: / /docs ont/303776/1 Document 2 cdocs: / /docs ont/303776/4 Renderinc set IStandard 21 Count Del�II 192 Moved ftein 143 Moved to 18 Style change 18 Format change 0 Moved deletion Inserted cell Deleted cell 0 Moved cell 371 Split/Merged cell Padding cell 21 Count Insertions 192 Deletions 143 Moved from 18 Moved to 18 Style change 0 Format chan ed 0 Total changes 371 21 MOW& 01115 STAFF REPORT Office of the City Clerk DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James Barrows, City Clerk Lisa Mussenden, Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manag SUBJECT: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERIWEIGHTS AND MEASURES ANNUAL WEED ABATEMENT CHARGE LIST PUBLIC HEARING. Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The County of Los Angeles (County) annually abates weeds, rubbish, and refuse upon certain properties located within the City of Arcadia. This public hearing has been scheduled to provide Arcadia residents, who have been charged inspection and /or abatement service fees by the County, an opportunity to protest the Weed Abatement charge list. DISCUSSION On July 7, 2009 the Los Angeles County (County) Agricultural Commissioner's Office delivered a list of private properties within Arcadia city limits upon which the County abated weeds and assessed charges (Attachment 1). A second list shows the same properties listed by location and property owner (Attachment II). Each property listed on the charge list has been posted and noticed of tonight's public hearing. If a property owner lodges an objection to the assessed charges during tonight's public hearing, the City Council may elect to have the matter investigated by the Arcadia Fire Department or overrule the objection. Otherwise, the Council may elect to approve the charge list as submitted. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact to the City as a result of City Council action on this item. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council review testimony from listed property owners, if any, and take appropriate action. Otherwise, staff recommends the City Council approve the attached charge list so the County Auditor may enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. Approved: Don Penman City Manager Attachments REPORT ON THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA Council Member: Pursuant to an order heretofore made by your Honorable Body instructing this Department to abate noxious or dangerous weeds and rubbish under the provisions of the Government Code, we respectfully submit the following report on the cost of abating such noxious weeds or dangerous weeds and rubbish on each separate lot or parcel of land, showing the cost of removing such weeds on each separate lot or parcel of land, or in front thereof, or both, to -wit: (see attached) ATTACHMENT I City of Arcadia Weed Abatement Charges by Weed Key July 7, 2009 Key Mapbook Page Parcel Zone City Code Total Charges 7 5765 002 012 06 035 46.10 7 5765 002 013 06 035 46.10 7 5765 Oil Oil 06 035 46.10 7 5765 030 010 06 035 46.10 7 5771 001 007 06 035 46.10 7 5771 032 013 06 035 46.10 7 5771 033 015 06 035 46.10 7 5771 033 016 06 035 46.10 7 5771 033 017 06 035 46.10 7 5773 007 009 06 035 46.10 7 5775 025 025 06 035 46.10 7 5779 015 004 06 035 46.10 7 5779 015 005 06 035 46.10 7 5779 015 006 06 035 46.10 7 5779 015 007 06 035 46.10 7 5779 015 040 06 035 46.10 7 5779 018 040 06 035 46.10 7 5779 5 :7:7 9 018 91 8 050 0 6 F5 06 96 035 9' Z 46.10 46.10 7 577 9 01s 066 96 93S 46 'Q 7 96 935 46.10 7 5779 5779 918 918 967 968 06 935 46.!G 7 779 018 969 06 935 46.10 7 - 7 5784 020 014 06 035 46.10 7 5788 014 013 06 035 46.10 7 5790 027 034 06 035 46.10 7 8532 016 001 06 035 46.10 7 8532 016 004 06 035 46.10 7 8532 016 022 06 035 46.10 7 8532 018 005 06 035 636.10 7 8532 018 011 06 035 633.60 7 8573 024 005 06 035 46.10 7 8573 024 006 06 035 46.10 TOTAL IMPROVED PARCELS = 0 /TOTAL CHARGES = $0.00 TOTAL UNIMPROVED PARCELS = 2 /TOTAL CHARGES = $1,269.70 TOTAL INSPECTION FEE ONLY PCLS = 26 /TOTAL CHARGES = $1,198.60 TOTAL PARCELS = 28 /TOTAL CHARGES = $2,468.30 3 , `j WEED ABATEMENT CHARGES BY ADDRESS ATTACHMENT II : .. c ,. ., h�.t #��. Anita Cyn Rd. r - a Navis Capital LLC 5765 - 002 -012 $46.10 Santa Anita Cyn Rd. Navis Capital LLC 5765- 002 -013 $46.10 Highland Vista Dr. Virginia Brown Trust 5765- 011 -011 $46.10 Highland Oaks Dr. Helen Vida Trust 5765 - 030 -010 $46.10 Santa Anita Wash Theodorou Kostantinos 5771 - 001 -007 $46.10 Whispering Pines Dr. Vicky Chung Trust 5771 - 032 -013 $46.10 Torrey Pines Dr. Michael Wu 5771 - 033 -015 $46.10 Torrey Pines Dr. Jemmy Pranyoto 5771 - 033 -016 $46.10 Torrey Pines Dr. Nicholas Pokrajac 5771- 033 -017 $46.10 153 E. Santa Clara St. Josef & Inge Koeper 5773 - 007 -009 $46.10 Santa Clara St. Donald Dahlgren Co. Trust 5775 - 025 -025 $46.10 Duarte Rd. Chen Fung Chien 5779 - 015 -004 $46.10 23 E Duarte Rd. Chen Fung Chien 5779 - 015 -005 $46.10 25 E Duarte Rd. Chen Fung Chien 5779 - 015 -006 $46.10 Duarte Rd. Chen Fung Chien 5779 - 015 -007 $46.10 3 E. Duarte Rd. Myers, Raymond & Helen 5779 - 015 -040 $46.10 201 E. Duarte Rd. Meiloon Properties LLC 5779 - 018 -040 $46.10 203 E. Duarte Rd. c c„ d � Meiloon Properties LLC GheFa�Mzriq G 5779 - 018 -050 P779 -948 -966 $46.10 $46.49 Big e KI RA 8q8 SSeeemd 6 Vassmdam LeRoy Ave. George Kolovos Trust 5784 - 020 -014 $46.10 Norman Ave. Eustolia Castillo 5788 - 014 -013 $46.10 Live Oak Ave. Charles and Alice Chow 5790 - 027 -034 $46.10 Clark St. Livingston Graham Inc. 8532 - 016 -001 $46.10 Clark St. Livingston Graham Inc. 8532 - 016 -004 $46.10 Clark St. Livingston Graham Inc. 8532 - 016 -022 $46.10 Goldring Rd. Samuel Kardashian 8532 - 018 -005 $636.10 Goldring Rd. Samuel Kardashian 8532 - 018 -011 $633.60 122 E. Live Oak Ave. Meeker Family Partners LP 8573 - 024 -005 $46.10 128 E. Live Oak Ave. Meeker Family Partners LP 8573 - 024 -006 $46.10 July 21, 2009 The foregoing report was submitted to the City Council of the City of Arcadia on the 21st of July, 2009, for confirmation and was with all objections thereto duly received and considered, and was by said City Council confirmed, and the County Auditor is hereby ordered and instructed to enter the amounts of the respective assessment against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment roll. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA ATTEST: By l City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF ARCADIA ) Raymond B. Smith, Deputy Director, Weed Hazard and Pest Management Bureau of the Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures Department, of the County of Los Angeles, being duly sworn, affirms: That on or before July 16, 2009, he posted or caused to be posted, on or near the chamber door of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, a copy of his report of the cost of noxious weed abatement on each and all of the properties described in the list hereto attached, of which the annexed is a true copy thereof, setting the 21st of July, 2009, as the date upon which said report is to be submitted to the City Council of the City of Arcadia for confirmation. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME July 16, 2009 City Clerk of City of Arcadia State of California 51:0097 CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009 CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Wuo called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council /Agency Member Amundson, Chandler, Harbicht, Kovacic and Wuo ABSENT: None STUDY SESSION PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per person) - None STUDY SESSION a. Report, discussion and direction regarding General Plan Revised Land Use Concept. Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director noted that on February 24, 2009, the City and Planning Commission held a joint study session to review the ten land use areas that staff, GPAC and the consultants developed to establish a vision for future development; that the City Council and Planning Commission agreed with the vision but felt the recommendations for mixed use development would result in too much change to the City. He explained the proposed revisions based on the February 24 meeting to limit mixed use designations to the Downtown and Live Oak Corridor 'and removal of mixed -use development from Foothill Boulevard, Duarte Road /First Avenue and Baldwin Avenue /Duarte Road. He further explained the proposed changes as (1) increase the maximum density from 24 -30 units per acre in existing High Density zoned areas and (2) change the Commercial /Light Industrial designation in the Downtown area to Commercial designation. It was the consensus of the City Council that this item be continued to a Study Session on July 21, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. for further discussion. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO OPEN SESSION Mayor Wuo called the regular meeting to order in the Council Chamber at 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION — Reverend Jolene Cadenbach, Arcadia Congregational Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Fire Chief Tony Trabbie ROLL CALL OF CITY COUNCIL /REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: PRESENT: Council /Agency Member Wuo, Amundson, Kovacic, Harbicht, and Chandler ABSENT: None 07 -07 -2009 51:0098 REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY /AGENCY COUNSEL ON STUDY SESSION ITEMS City Attorney Steve Deitsch reported that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency met in a Study Session to hear a report, discuss and provide direction regarding the General Plan Revised Land Use Concept; and further reported that the City Council unanimously agreed to continue the Study Session to July 21, 2009 at 5:00 p.m. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS - None MOTION TO READ ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE THE READING IN FULL A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Amundson seconded by Council /Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to read all ordinances and resolutions by title only and waive the reading in full. 1. CITY CLERK'S REPORTS a. Make appointment to Senior Citizen's Commission (Arcadia Travelers Club) to fill an unexpired term. Recommended Action: Make appointment City Clerk James Barrows reported that on June 16, 2009, the City Council reappointed Harlene Hamann to the Senior Citizens Commission Travelers Club to serve an additional two year term; that on June 22, 2009 the City was notified that Ms. Hamann had passed away. He noted the Arcadia Travelers Club submitted a letter recommending the City Council appoint Esther Barnes to fill Ms. Hamann's term that expires June 30, 2011. It was moved by Council Member Harbicht, seconded by Council Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to appoint Esther Barnes to fill the unexpired term of Harleen Hamann which expires June 30, 2011. AYES: Council Member Harbicht, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None PRESENTATIONS a. Presentations to outgoing Members and Administration of the Oath of Office to newly appointed Board and Commission Members. b. Presentation to Danielle Regine Careddu. C. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Census Bureau. 07 -07 -2009 51:0099 2. PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: a. Consideration of an amendment to Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005- 026 for Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita Phase lb to increase the restaurant space from 10,000 square feet to 23,500 square feet. Adopt Resolution No. 6676 amending Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 6562 — Architectural Design Review No. ADR 2005 -026 for the expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown — Santa Anita (Phase1 b) at 400 South Baldwin Avenue Recommended Action: Conduct Public Hearing and Adopt Resolution Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director advised that on June 2, 2009 the City Council continued the public hearing to July 7; that on July 1s the City received a request from Westfield to continue the public hearing to the July 21s because they were not available; and recommended the public hearing be continued to the City Council meeting of July 21S Mayor Wuo opened the public hearing. Rick Lemmo, Senior Vice President of Caruso Affiliated appeared and requested a continuance of the public hearing to a date after August 1, 2009, as Caruso staff would not be available before then. Larry Green, Senior Vice President of Westfield appeared and requested the public hearing be continued to the July 21, 2009 City Council meeting. It was moved by Council Member Harbicht, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Amundson and carried on roll call to continue the public hearing to the City Council meeting of July 21, 2009. AYES: Council Member Harbicht, Amundson, Chandler and Wuo NOES: Council Member Kovacic ABSENT: None b. Approve the use of CDBG -R Funds for Energy Efficient Improvements for multiple - family dwellings that are predominately occupied by low and moderate income senior citizens. Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director provided background information regarding the federal stimulus money that the City will receive in the amount of $120,195 in Community Development Block Grant Recovery funds (CDBG -R); he indicated that a project summary was submitted to the Community Development Commission proposing a low /moderate income senior citizen multiple family residential rehabilitation project, and explained that the primary objectives of the CDBG -R program is to fund improvements associated with infrastructure that provide basic services to low and moderate income residents or improvements that promote energy efficiency and conservation through rehabilitation or retrofitting of existing facilities. Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator reported that the CDBG -R funds must be allocated to projects by the end of October and that recipients use half of the funds for projects that can be initiated by October; that all CDBG -R funds must be expended by September 30, 2012; that staff is proposing that CDBG -R funds be used for the rehabilitation of multi -unit senior 07 -07 -2009 N 51:0100 citizen residences predominately occupied by low and moderate income persons with an emphasis to be placed on energy efficiency improvements; he explained that Naomi Gardens and Heritage Park at Arcadia are two facilities that met the proposed criteria and expressed an interest in being a project participant; he explained the various improvements requested by Naomi Gardens but noted that Heritage Park at Arcadia has not yet responded; he explained that there is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund and that all funds including the administrative allowance come from the grant; and recommended the City Council approve the use of the $120,195 in CDBG -R funds for the proposed multi -unit senior citizen residential rehabilitation project. Mayor Wuo opened the public hearing. No one appeared. A motion to close the public hearing was made by Council Member Harbicht seconded by Council Member Chandler and seeing no further objection, Mayor Wuo declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Council Member Harbicht seconded by Council Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to approve the use of CDBG -R Funds for a rehabilitation project, with an emphasis on energy efficiency improvements at the Naomi Gardens and /or Heritage Park senior citizen residential facilities and fund an allocation of $120,195 or as modified by the City Council and authorize the City Manager to modify the project and /or allocation should amendments become necessary and execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission. AYES: Council Member Harbicht, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Beth Costanza of the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce announced that July 16 is the Chamber's 75 anniversa7 of incorporation; she discussed the day's events including guest Wink Martindale and the 5 historic marker that will be placed at the Chamber and announced the 25 anniversary of the Embassy Suites in Arcadia on July 21 Winston Chao of the San Marino Tribune announced that the San Marino Tribune will be covering Arcadia and looks forward to working with Arcadia officials. REPORTS FROM THE MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY CLERK Council Member Kovacic reminded everyone about the summer concerts on Thursdays at 6:30 p.m. on the City Hall lawn; he announced that tutors are needed for the Conversational Skills Class at the Library that assists individuals in communicating in English and anyone interested should contact the Library for additional information. Mayor Pro Tem Amundson reminded everyone about the Operation Homecoming program; he discussed the 3` Annual Veterans History Project sponsored by Congressman Drier that honors veterans; he reminded everyone to take precautions when going on vacation and noted that the Police Department will do vacation checks; and discussed family and neighborhood safety. 07 -07 -2009 4 51:0101 Council Member Chandler commented on an article he read in the Pasadena Star Newspaper regarding a bridge being built over Santa Anita and noted that people think it is the City's grade separation project approved by the voters a few years ago. In response to Council Member Chandler's comments regarding the bridge, Mr. Penman explained that the Gold Line decided to call the bridge across the freeway the "Santa Anita Bridge "; that the reconstruction of the bridge currently taking place is from the median in the freeway to the south side of the freeway and will provide the extension of the Gold Line Light Rail. He confirmed that this is not the grade separation the voters of Arcadia approved. Council Member Chandler further commented on another article in the Pasadena Star Newspaper on Sunday, July 5 written by Arcadia resident Tony Fellows entitled "Fed Up — Change the State Government." Council Member Harbicht announced that he recently attended an end of term Conversational Skills Class. Mayor Wuo announced that the Development Services Department is looking for Code Services volunteers; that the Police Department now offers on -line filing of police reports for non - emergency incidents; he announced that August 15 is household and a -waste round up at Santa Anita Racetrack and encouraged everyone to participate; that September 12 the City will be having a community BBQ; and announced his daughter was married on June 28 and is on a honeymoon in Alaska. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEMS: a. Approve the Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2009. Recommended Action: Approve CITY COUNCIL ITEMS: b. Approve the Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2009. Recommended Action: Approve C. Approve a purchase order with Standard Concrete Company for the purchase of concrete for the repair of sidewalks, driveways, streets, curb and putter in various locations throughout the City in the amount of $45.000. Recommended Action: Approve d. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Agreement with the San Gabriel Valley of Governments for the development of the Coordinated Implementation Plan (CIP) for the Los Angeles River Metals Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Recommended Action: Approve e. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Grant Application for Receipt of FY 2009 Federal Funds Requiring City Matching Funds for Water System Improvements. Recommended Action: Approve 07 -07 -2009 5 51:0102 Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Beacon Media, Inc. for Legal Advertising Services for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010. Recommended Action: Approve g. Approve the purchase of self- contained breathing apparatus and related respiratory protection equipment from L.N. Curtis & Sons in an amount not to exceed $174,499. Recommended Action: Approve Accept all work performed by Steiny & Co., Inc. for the Traffic Signal Pole Mast Arm and Equipment Improvement Project as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with contract documents. Recommended Action: Approve It was moved by Council /Agency Member Chandler seconded by Council /Agency Member Harbicht and carried on roll call vote to approve items 3.a through 3.h on the City Council /Agency Consent Calendar. AYES: Council /Agency Member Chandler, Harbicht, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None 4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CITY MANAGER a. Approve the transfer of $2,511,961 from Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Reserves to the City's General Fund to repay the principal and interest on a Promissory note to purchase 630 East Live Oak Avenue. Recommended Action: Approve City Manager Don Penman reported that as part of the purchase of 21 Morlan Place for the expansion of Rusnak/Arcadia Mercedes Benz, the Agency purchased the property at 630 E. Live Oak from the City; that the site was included as part of the overall transaction for the Church in Arcadia as the location for its new building; the City took a promissory note from the Agency to complete the land acquisition and the loan was approved on January 16, 2008 in the amount of $2,247,000 with an interest rate of 8 %. He requested the Agency pay the City $2,511,961 from Redevelopment Agency reserves for the repayment of principal and interest on a $2,247,000 loan to the General Fund and approve an even split of those proceeds between the Emergency Reserve and Equipment Replacement Funds. It was moved by Council /Agency Member Harbicht seconded by Council /Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to approve the transfer of $2,511,961 from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency reserves to the City's General Fund to repay the principal and interest on a promissory note to purchase 630 East Live Oak Avenue. AYES: Council /Agency Member Harbicht, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None 07 -07 -2009 :1 51:0103 b. Accept the repayment of $2,511,961 from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and authorize an equal split of the proceeds between the Emergency Reserve Fund and Equipment Replacement Fund. Recommended Action: Approve It was moved by Council /Agency Member Harbicht seconded by Council /Agency Member Chandler and carried on roll call vote to accept the repayment of $2,522.961 from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency and authorize an equal split of the proceeds between the Equipment Replacement and Capital Improvement Funds. AYES: Council /Agency Member Harbicht, Chandler, Amundson, Kovacic and Wuo NOES: None ABSENT: None ADJOURNMENT The City Council /Redevelopment Agency meeting adjourned in memory of Donna Jean Davis Mills and Harlene Hamann at 8:20 p.m. to Tuesday, July 21, 2009, 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber Conference Room located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia. James H. Barrows, City Clerk 1� 5A l By: Lisa Mussenden Chief Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager 07 -07 -2009 7 `t STAFF REPORT Development Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Services Director- Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director of Development Services /City Engineer Prepared by: Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6687 APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT No. 009 -N TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE FROM LONGDEN AVENUE TO LIVE OAK AVENUE PROJECT Recommended Action: Adopt SUMMARY On February 17, 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), of which, a portion of the act will fund infrastructure improvement projects throughout the nation. The City of Arcadia will likely receive approximately $2 million for road improvement projects. Applications for the funding have been submitted and one has been approved. As a part of the approval, Council is to authorize a City employee to execute various agreements with Caltrans. Approval of this resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements, and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. DISCUSSION On February 17, 2009, the President signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). ARRA provides $27.5 billion supplemental funding to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects to be apportioned to the states after certain takedowns. California's share is estimated to be $2.57 billion. The City of Arcadia's share is approximately $2 million. City personnel have submitted applications for various road improvement projects to the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). Caltrans together with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) Staff Report Adopt Resolution No. 6687 July 21, 2009 Page 2 have reviewed and approved one of the applications. As a part of the process the City Council is to authorize, through the method of a formal resolution, a city employee to execute various agreements with Caltrans. Approval of this resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute all Master Agreements, Program Supplemental Agreements, Fund Exchange Agreements, Fund Transfer Agreements, and any amendments thereto with the California Department of Transportation. Approval has been obtained for the Rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue from Longden Avenue to Live Oak Avenue Project. Funds in the amount of $600,000 have been approved for reimbursement for this project. This section of roadway has been rated as poor by the City's Pavement Management Program and was scheduled for rehabilitation within a few years. The work will consist of concrete repairs, construction of wheelchair access ramps, pavement repairs, and rubberized asphalt concrete overlay. FISCAL IMPACT The total estimated cost of th e Supplemental Agreement No. $600,000. The balance of t Proposition C funds as outlined RECOMMENDATION project is $650,000. State approval of the Program 009 -N allows reimbursement to the City of up to he construction costs, $50,000, will be drawn form in the 2009 -10 Capital Improvement Program. That the City Council adopts Resolution 6687 approving Program Supplemental Agreement No. 009 -N to Encumber Federal Aid Funds for the Rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue from Longden Avenue to Live Oak Avenue Project and Authorize the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute this agreement. Approved by: D &Q W J Donald Penman, City Manager JK:PAW:MR:pa RESOLUTION NO. 6687 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT No. 009 -N TO ENCUMBER FEDERAL AID FUNDS FOR THE REHABILITATION OF SANTA ANITA AVENUE FROM LONGDEN AVENUE TO LIVE OAK AVENUE PROJECT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Supplement No. 009 -N Program of Local Agency Federal Aid System Projects, to encumber Federal Aid funds for the Rehabilitation of Santa Anita Avenue from Longden Avenue to Live Oak Avenue Project is hereby approved and the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to sign such Supplement Agreement. SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of ,2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: r Stephen Deitsch, City Attorney Development Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Kruckeberg, Development Se ices Director - 5LY , Robert Sanderson, Police Chief Philip A. Wray, Deputy Director o Development Services /City Engineer Prepared by: Ramiro Gonzalez, Assistant Engineer �%p). SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6688 AMENDING RESOLUTION 6670 SETTING FORTH LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE SPEED LIMITS ON COLORADO STREET Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY On March 17, 2009, the City Council adopted Legally Enforceable Speed Limits for 52 segments on 31 arterial and collector streets citywide. As part of the new adoption, the speed limits on five segments were raised. One of the five was Colorado Street between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard which was raised from 45 to 50 miles per hour. Upon re- review of the roadway conditions and consultation with the local Traffic Court, staff has revised the data sheet with a recommendation to keep the speed limit at its previous speed of 45 miles per hour. Staff recommends the adoption of Resolution 6688 to set the legally enforceable speed limit on Colorado Street at 45 miles per hour. BACKGROUND In late 2008, staff undertook a comprehensive Engineering and Traffic Survey (E &TS) of all street segments with previously adopted speed limits to re- establish enforceable speed limits. Out of a total of 52 segments, five segments were recommended for an upward change, one of which was Colorado Street between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. On March 17, 2009, the City Council considered the results of the E &TS and the adoption of the new speed limits. At that time they expressed their concern for the increase on Colorado Street, due to the relatively high pre- existing Staff Report Resolution 6688 July 21, 2009 Page 2 speed limit and the impact of the speed change on the sharp curve near Colorado Boulevard. The Council proceeded to adopt the speed limit results including the increase for Colorado Street., Upon implementation of the new speed limits, the City received numerous complaints regarding the impacts of the increase on Colorado Street. Concerns were raised by residents of the neighboring tracts regarding the difficulties in getting into and out of streets intersecting Colorado Street because of the increased speeds. Also there are no parking lanes or shoulders on the street and the traffic lanes are adjacent to the curb causing conflicts with bicycles, pedestrians, bus stops and view lines from intersecting streets. DISCUSSION The California Vehicle Code's provision for an E &TS includes the allowance for adjustments to proposed speed limits based on roadway conditions. Minor speed limit adjustments may be made based on roadway conditions not readily apparent to the driver, or where conditions exist that contribute to additional street activity and conflicts to the driver. However in past years, cities have taken advantage of this provision to artificially lower speed limits based on limited or non - existent adverse conditions. The traffic court judges have become more reluctant to accept speed limits that vary from the actual 85% vehicle speed data, and have upheld appeals where speed limits were lowered for roadway condition reasons. The courts have warned that speed limit adjustments must be clearly justified and documented. With regard to Colorado Street, the 85 percentile speed for the 2008 E &TS was 51 miles per hour. At that time, staff did not believe that the roadway conditions would justify a lower speed limit. Upon receiving the complaints and concerns from the neighborhood, staff conducted additional review of the roadway conditions along the entire segment. Staff feels that there are justifiable conditions that would support a lower speed limit. Those conditions not readily apparent to the driver are: 1. Limited visibility from and of vehicles on intersecting streets 2. Travel lanes directly adjacent to the curb, eliminating any buffer between the street and the parkway 3. Pedestrian and bicycle activity that must partially share the roadway with vehicles The Police Department has consulted with the local traffic court judge regarding the Colorado Street data and the conditions identified above. The judge agreed with the City's recommendation and would support the speed limit of 45 miles per hour. However, the judge indicated that decreasing the speed lower than 45 miles per hour would not be justified and all enforcement efforts would be null and void. For these Staff Report Resolution 6688 July 21, 2009 Page 3 reasons, staff feels that the speed limit should be maintained at its previous level of 45 miles per hour. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact of this action. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt Resolution 6688, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, amending Resolution 6670 setting forth legally enforceable speed limits on Colorado Street. Approved by: 3&yla-ev Donald Penman, City Manager JK:RS:PAW:RSG:pa Attachment A: Resolution 6688 Attachment B: Speed Limit Map (Proposed) RESOLUTION NO. 6688 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION 6670 SETTING FORTH LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE SPEED LIMITS ON A PORTION OF COLORADO STREET WHEREAS, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Sections 22357 and 22358, Sections 3221 and 3222 of the Arcadia Municipal Code authorize the City Council, on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey, to decrease the prima facie speed limit otherwise allowed by state law on certain streets in order to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic in a manner that is reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, the City of Arcadia has recently conducted an engineering and traffic survey which together with earlier such engineering and traffic surveys, indicates that a speed less than that otherwise permitted by state law on Colorado Street would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires and intends to keep in place without interruption those certain increases and decreases in the prima facie speed limit on certain streets set forth in Arcadia Municipal Code Sections 3221 through and including 3221.23 and Sections 3222 through and including 3222.9; and 1 WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 2190 which permits the City Council, by resolution, to increase or decrease the prima facie speed limit on certain streets based on an engineering and traffic survey, while at the same time removing from the Arcadia Municipal Code those certain increases or decreases in prima facie speed limits in existence at the time of adoption of Ordinance No. 2190. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: .SECTION 1. On the basis of an engineering and traffic survey conducted by the City, a decrease in the speed otherwise permitted by State Law upon a portion of Colorado Street would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe. Therefore, the prima facie speed limit on a portion of Colorado Street shall be as follows: Colorado Street between Michillinda Avenue and Colorado Boulevard, forty -five (45) miles per hour. SECTION 2. The decrease in prima facie speed limits set forth in this Resolution shall be effective upon the effective date of this Resolution, and City Staff are hereby authorized and directed to erect and install appropriate signs upon the applicable street giving notice of the foregoing prima facie speed limit. 2 SECTION 3. SECTION 4. Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Passed, approved and adopted this day of 5 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 3 1 1 � city o rtLKINS AVE ' GRANDWEW AVE I \ 'a��,pR -•° SIERRA MADRE BL 1 .Arca,fia 1 y � O RANGE GROVE A VE Q o : • MCC m FOOTHILL BL y = H Colorado St coLowioo BL COL RADO Q Limits g � NTA ST N J Q �J 1- HU TINGTO DR CAMPUS DR y DUAP 1 cn — — — con D UARTE RD Q Q a Resolution No. 6688 Colorado Street Speed Limit July 21, 2009 V y Ineorpnrnud n�►�. s, wua n $ 0 1 � 5 �[rr,it y STAFFr"D,,,__EP0RT Administrative Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Hue C. Quach, Administrative Services Director Prepared by: Michael A. Casalou, Human Resources Administrator SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 6690 ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR CITY COUNCIL, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, SAFETY MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES Recommendation: Adopt SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 6690 establishing compensation and related fringe benefits for City Council, Executive Management, Safety Management and Management employees. BACKGROUND In July 2007, salary and benefit increases were provided to Executive Management, Safety Management and Management employees and multi -year labor contracts were reached with all four of the City's bargaining groups. As the budget process for fiscal year 2009 -10 moved forward, it became apparent that the difficult economic climate would require significant cuts to obtain a balanced budget. After much deliberation, staff was able to reduce the General Fund shortfall from an initial amount of $2.6 million to a little under $600,000. At the direction of the City Council, staff met with all of the City's bargaining groups and obtained agreement from them on various salary and benefit reductions and deferrements. Though Executive Management, Safety Management and Management employees are unrepresented, they as well as all of the bargaining groups have been asked to contribute their fair share. As a result of the salary and benefit reductions agreed upon by all City employees, the City was able to further reduce the shortfall by $300,000, with $270,000 of that in the General Fund. Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 Page 2 of 3 DISCUSSION In an effort to minimize the use of reserve funds to balance the 2009 -10 General Fund Budget, the following salary/benefit reductions will be implemented as specified: City Council • The $150 per month increase in health insurance contribution with an effective date of July 1, 2009 will be deferred six (6) months to January 1, 2010. Executive Management (excluding Safety Executive Management) and Ma nagement • The $150 per month increase in health insurance contribution with an effective date of July 1, 2009 will be deferred six (6) months to January 1, 2010. • Effective July 1, 2009, Longevity Pay for Executive Management and Management employees shall be suspended four (4) months to November 1, 2009. Safety Management (including Executive Safety Management) • The $150 per month increase in health insurance contribution with an effective date of July 1, 2009 will be deferred three (3) months to October 1, 2009. • Effective July 1, 2009, Longevity Pay for Safety Executive Management and Safety Management employees shall be suspended for twelve (12) months to June 30, 2010. Note: All effective dates are approximate and may change slightly to coincide with applicable payroll cycles. Additionally, any Executive Management, Safety Management or Management employee who notifies the Administrative Services Director of their intent to retire during fiscal year 2009 -10, can continue receiving Longevity Pay without suspension so as not to adversely impact their PERS retirement calculation. However, the individual would still be required to contribute their fair share of the deferral by paying a lump sum contribution by July 31, 2009. FISCAL IMPACT If approved, these actions will reduce expenditures for FY 2009 -10 by approximately $98,300.00 with $82,000.00 of that in the General Fund. Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Adopt Resolution No. 6690 of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, establishing compensation and related benefits for City Council, Executive Management, Safety Management and Management employees. APPROVED: Donald Penman, City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 6690 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR CITY COUNCIL, EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, SAFETY MANAGEMENT AND MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 5608 sets forth various fringe benefits and related compensation for officials, officers and management of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 36 of that Resolution provides for amendment and modification of Resolution No. 5608 (the Fringe Benefits Resolution) by City Council approved resolutions that direct inclusion of any changes as part of said Resolution; and WHEREAS, salaries and benefits for City Council, Executive Management, Sworn Safety Management and Management employees are adjusted by resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council, Executive Management and Management employees shall defer the scheduled $150.00 per month increase for healthcare benefits for six (6) months from July 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010. Safety Executive Management and Safety Management employees shall defer the 1 scheduled $150.00 per month increase for healthcare benefits for three (3) months from July 1, 2009 to October 1, 2009. SECTION 2. Effective July 1, 2009, Longevity Pay for Executive Management and Management employees shall be suspended for four (4) months to November 1, 2009. Effective July 1, 2009, Longevity Pay for Safety Executive Management and Safety Management employees shall be suspended for twelve (12) months through June 30, 2010. Anv Executive C , , r 4.. Executive Management or Management employee who notifies the Administrative Services Director of their intent to retire during fiscal year 2009 -10, can continue receiving Longevity Pay without suspension so as not to adversely impact their PERS retirement calculation. However, the individual would still be required to contribute their fair share of the deferral by paying a lump sum contribution by July 31, 2009. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. [SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE] K Passed, approved and adopted this day of , 2009. Mayor of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Stephen P. Deitsch City Attorney DATE: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Director I Prepared by: Tom Tait, Public Works Services Deputy Director t SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH GREAT CLEANING SERVICE, INC. FOR JANITORIAL AND PORTER SERVICES FOR CITY FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $229,173 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Grace Building, the previous cleaning contractor, failed to meet payroll obligations and performance requirements which led to the City terminating its contract with them on April 6, 2009 for breach of contract. Subsequently, formal bids were solicited for janitorial and porter services. Four (4) bids were received, each exceeding the budget for this service. On June 2, 2009, the City Council rejected the bids received and directed staff to re -bid the contract with revised specifications for these services. Staff revised the specifications of the contract and solicited new bids for these services. As advertised, sealed bids were opened on June 30, 2009. Six (6) bids were received with Great Cleaning Service, Inc. submitting the lowest bid. Staff recommends that City Council award a one year contract in the amount of $229,173 with annual extensions subject to City Council approval to Great Cleaning Service, Inc. DISCUSSION The Public Works Services Department (PWSD) is responsible for maintaining all City facilities. Contract services are utilized to provide janitorial and porter services to keep all facilities clean and tidy for general use by both the public and city employees. Janitorial services include cleaning all common areas, restrooms, and offices at City Hall, Community Center, Museum, Library, and the Public Works Service Center. Porter services are performed at City Hall, Library, Community Center, Fire Station 105 and the Police Department whose services include cleaning light fixtures, public restrooms, and helping office staff with routine services that includes setting up for special events and cleaning and stocking public restrooms. Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 City staff revised the specifications of the contract without compromising the cleanliness of facilities nor the quality of porter services and solicited formal bids again. Notice inviting bids was published on June 15, 2009 in. the adjudicated paper and bid packages were acquired by area contractors. The City Clerk publicly opened six (6) sealed bids on June 30, 2009 with the following results: Rank Name Location Bid Amount 1 Great Cleaning Service, Inc. 2 ABM Janitorial Services 3 Merchants Building Maintenance 4 Come Land Maintenance Company 5 United Maintenance Services 6 Specialty Services Irvine $229,173 Los Angeles $271,209 Pomona $277,309 Los Angeles $299,400 Burbank $300,043 Arcadia $322,499 Staff has reviewed the bid documents for content and has investigated the Contractor's background as well as current and recent contracts for janitorial and porter services. It has been determined that Great Cleaning Service, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder and is able to perform the work required. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Great Cleaning Service, Inc. with optional annual extensions for janitorial and porter services in the amount of $229,173. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the FY 2009 -10 Operating Budget for janitorial and porter services. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with Great Cleaning Service, Inc. for janitorial and porter services in the amount of $229,173. Approved: Doti �Pc,, � J Donald Penman, City Manager . ►7TH Page 2 of 2 4 =r l"t hill Public Works Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council Ac FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE (1) YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH D &J FOOTHILL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR ELECTRICAL PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE AT VARIOUS CITY FACILITIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 115,500 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On August 1, 2006, the City Council approved a one (1) year contract agreement with optional contract extensions to D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors for electrical repairs and preventative maintenance at City facilities. D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc. is reaching the end of their second (2) contract extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the existing agreement. The existing agreement also includes a 7% reduction or $8,700 from its initial contract cost as part of the City's mid -year budget reductions. Based on the excellent service provided by D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc., staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $115,500 to D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc. for electrical services and preventative maintenance in order to ensure scheduled projects and repairs are completed in a timely manner. DISCUSSION Due to electrical capital projects scheduled for 2009 -10 and ongoing preventative maintenance at various City facilities, the Public Works Services Department has determined that awarding a one (1) year contract extension to D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc. would be advantageous to the City. Having one qualified contractor to provide electrical services and preventative maintenance for these projects and all City Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 facilities will permit a time and cost efficient process for both scheduled and unscheduled repairs and improvements. D &J Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc. has submitted a written offer to renew their contract in accordance with the existing agreement that includes a 7% reduction or $8,700 from its original contract. The decreased contract cost was negotiated as part of the City's mid -year budget reductions whereby the contractor's hourly labor costs were reduced. Staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $115,500 for electrical services and preventative maintenance at various City facilities FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are budgeted in the 2009 -10 Facilities Maintenance Operating budgets of Fire, Police, Library, Recreation, Community Center, and Public Works for these services. Additionally, the Capital Improvement Program budget includes funds for electrical work for the construction of the projects approved in 2009 -10. RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $115,500 to DU Foothill Electrical Contractors, Inc. for electrical services and preventative maintenance at various City facilities. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by: Donald Penman, City Manager ►f�I� Page 2 of 2 I" Inrornur and AuYurI i. I9U3 �6 ty °t� °R STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Dir tor' Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Directo Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY PARDESS AIR FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AIR HANDLERS FOR HEATING AND COOLING IN THE LIBRARY AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On January 20, 2009, the City Council awarded a contract to Pardess Air in the amount of $260,000 for the installation of air handlers for heating and cooling in the Library. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction with a total project cost of $263,391.90. This amount reflects the original contract amount of $260,000 plus contract changes totaling $3,391.90 or 1 % above the original contract amount. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Pardess Air for the installation of air handlers for heating and cooling in the Library as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. DISCUSSION Air handlers supply heating and cooling to 80% of the building space at the Library. An air handler is a device used to condition and circulate air as part of the heating, ventilating and air - conditioning (HVAC) system. It is a large metal box that contains a blower with heating and cooling elements and is connected to ductwork that distributes the conditioned air throughout the entire building. In 1996 when the library underwent an extensive remodel, most of the existing HVAC devices were replaced with energy efficient equipment, unfortunately as a cost saving measure, it was decided to not replace the two air handling units and related piping due Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 to the excessive costs associated with replacing the apparatus. The air handlers were not operating at full capacity because there was a significant loss of air flow through heating and cooling coils. By replacing the old air handlers with a more energy efficient system, the City qualified for an energy incentive cash rebate in the amount of $5,850. Additionally, the reduced kilowatt hours (kwh) will also provide the City an energy cost savings of approximately $6,000 per year. In addition to the work originally covered by the contract, there were two (2) contract change orders (CCO). The following is the description and cost for each change order: CCO # Description Amount 1 Additional Pipe Strapping $ 1,861.10 2 Three (3) Way Valve $ 1,530.80 Total Change Orders $ 3,391.90 The terms and conditions of this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to staffs satisfaction. Staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Pardess Air as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to retention of $26,339.19. FISCAL IMPACT The 2008 -09 Capital Improvement Program included $400,000 for the installation of the air handlers. The remaining balance (approximately $136,000), less staff costs, engineering /inspection services and automated controllers, for this project will be returned to the Capital Fund Reserve account. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept all work performed by Pardess Air for the installation of air handlers for heating and cooling in the Library as complete. 2. Authorize final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to retention of $26,339.19. Approved by ME - D O - n .LA,V P Donald Penman, City Manager Page 2 of 2 -, F ",, DATE: July 21, 2009 rAii 0 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Direct Prepared by: Lubomir Tomaier, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Rynkiewicz, Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: ACCEPT ALL WORK PERFORMED BY ADVANCED SOLUTIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 75 CATCH BASIN INSERTS TO CAPTURE TRASH DEBRIS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRASH TMDL AS COMPLETE AND AUTHORIZE THE FINAL PAYMENT TO BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On July 15, 2008, the City Council awarded a contract to Advance Solutions in the amount of $69,375 for the construction of the 2008 -2009 Catch Basin Inserts Project. The terms and conditions of this project have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction for a total project cost of $69,375. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Advance Solutions for the installation of 75 catch basin inserts to capture trash and debris to be in compliance with the Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents. DISCUSSION The Los Angeles River Trash TMDL implementation schedule requires the City to reduce the amount of trash in the storm drain system by 60% by September 30, 2008 to "zero" trash by September 30, 2014. The Trash TMDL mandate allows cities to use a variety of compliance methods to prevent litter and debris from entering in to the storm drain conveyance system. Staff has chosen to use a full capture system that is deemed in full compliance with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). A full capture system is any single device or series of devices that retains all particles greater than 5 millimeter (mm) while maintaining design drainage capacity of the catch basin and storm drain conveyance system. Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 The device is installed inside of the catch basin. The catch basin insert will filter out trash and debris as water passes through the catch basin. Advanced Solutions is the sole source provider for the patented StormTek catch basin inserts that has been certified as a full capture device by the LARWQCB. The terms and conditions of this contract have been complied with and the work has been performed to staff's satisfaction with no contract change orders. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept all work performed by Advanced Solutions as complete and authorize the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to retention of $6,937.50. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT This project is categorically exempt per Section 15302 (c) replacement from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT $75,000 is included in the 2008/2009 Capital Improvement Program Budget under the Trash Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Facility Project. RECOMMENDATION 1. Accept all work performed by Advanced Solutions for the 2008 -2009 Catch Basin inserts to capture trash and debris to be in compliance with the Trash TMDL Project as complete. 2. Authorize final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents, subject to retention of $6,937.50. Approved by: - r DTnc -xZ0 J Donald Penman, City Manager PM:LT:MR Attachment Page 2 of 2 I . N I NO - DATE: July 21, 2009 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: AUTHROIZE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER TO SHELDON MECHANICAL CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,622 FOR EXTRAORDINARY REPAIRS AND APPROPRIATE $21,622 FROM THE CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY The Public Works Services Department (PWSD) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems for all City facilities. On June 18, the cooling system for the City's Council Chambers failed and it was determined that the compressor would need to be replaced. Funding for this work was not included in this years budget, but in order to bring the system back up to operation and to continue to cool the Council Chamber for day to day activities, the compressor was replaced as soon as a replacement was available. Staff recommends that this work be added to the existing HVAC maintenance services contract which was approved as a part of the 2008 -09 Operating Budget and appropriate $21,622 from the Capital Outlay Fund to pay for the replacement of the damaged compressor. This equipment failure may be covered by an insurance policy that the City has for catastrophic equipment failure. Administrative Services will file a claim with the City's insurance carrier to see if this repair is eligible for reimbursement. If it is eligible and we are successful in receiving reimbursement for the repair, the refund will be deposited into the Capital Fund Reserve Fund. DISCUSSION The Public Works Services Department (PWSD) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of HVAC systems for all City facilities. PWSD contracts with Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the preventative maintenance and major servicing of HVAC Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 equipment for all City facilities. This contract includes monthly routine preventative maintenance as well as any extraordinary repairs that may arise at City and /or park facilities. On June 18, the cooling system in the City's Council Chambers failed. PWSD contacted Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for inspection of the system and to conduct repairs. Upon inspection of the HVAC system Sheldon Mechanical found that the cooling compressor had stopped working and was no longer operable. The HVAC compressor was originally installed in 2000. It is the opinion of Sheldon Mechanical that the compressor failed due to the failure of a metering valve that regulates the amount of gas and Freon into the HVAC system. This broken metering valve caused catastrophic and premature failure of the HVAC compressor. Staff therefore authorized Sheldon Mechanical to purchase and install the new compressor and metering valve. This equipment failure may be covered by an insurance policy that the City has for catastrophic equipment failure. It is staff's opinion that the compressor failed due to an unforeseen catastrophic reason. Administrative Services will file a claim with the City's insurance carrier to see if this repair is eligible for reimbursement. If it is eligible and we are successful in receiving reimbursement for the repair, the refund will be deposited into the Capital Fund Reserve Fund. Staff recommends this work be added to the existing HVAC maintenance services contract which was approved as a part of the 2008 -09 Operating Budget and appropriate $21,622 from the Capital Outlay Fund to cover the cost of this repair work. FISCAL IMPACT: The City currently holds a HVAC equipment failure insurance policy. After the installation and repair work has been completed PWSD Staff will be seeking full reimbursement, less the deductable of material and labor costs accordingly. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract change order in the amount of $21,622 to Sheldon Mechanical Corporation for the repair of the Council Chambers HVAC cooling compressor. 2. Authorize the appropriation of $21,622 from the Capital Outlay Fund. Approved by: Donald Penman, Penman, City Manager PM:DM:jb Page 2 of 2 0 Date: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department To: Mayor and City Council From: Hue Quach, Administrative Services D{re for By: Jan Steese, Purchasing Of�cerj ; Subject: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract in the amount not to exceed $140,000 for a one (1) year contract through June 30, 2010 for office supplies from Office Depot Recommendation: APPROVE SUMMARY The City of Arcadia typically spends approximately $140,000 for office supplies yearly. This contract allows city departments to receive desktop delivery of office supplies used on a daily basis. The contract also allows us to place orders with Office Depot for specialty type items and all items can be ordered by fax, phone or through the Internet. Staff is recommending that the City continues in participating in a multi- agency joint bid as it would provide the best price under the Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities contract with Office Depot. This contract is valid through December 31, 2009 and offers two (2) one -year renewal options. Staff has met with the Office Depot representatives and they have indicated that they expect the contract to be renewed. In the event the contract is not renewed after December, 2009, staff will bring a report back to Council for approval at that time. DISCUSSION In 1994, a jointly sponsored agency, U.S. Communities was formed. U.S. Communities is a non - profit public benefit corporation established by local governments and is comprised of representatives from various large governmental entities. U.S. Communities pools the purchasing power of public agencies and achieves bulk discounts on behalf of public agencies and provides a national purchasing forum for all participating agencies nationwide. In November 2005, Los Angeles County via U.S. Communities solicited office supply bids for a four (4) year term. Office Depot was awarded the contract effective January 2, 2006 through January 1, 2010 which the city is currently utilizing. The City of Arcadia's current contract expired on June 30, 2009 and requires City Council approval to award a new contract to Office Depot which would coincide with the Los Angeles County /U. S. Communities contract. Currently, there are over 5,000 public agencies participating in the Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities contract. The current Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities contract offers two (2) one -year renewal options. In the event Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities decides the contract will not be renewed, staff will explore what other options are available and bring a report back to Council at that time. Office supplies are ordered by each department on a city -wide basis and the current contract offers desktop delivery, on -line ordering, good customer service and timely deliveries. It is staff's opinion that it is in the best interest of the City to purchase office supplies from Office Depot utilizing the Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities contract for the period ending June 30, 2010 provided it is renewed in January, 2010 and authorize staff to renew the contract on a year by year basis for a maximum of two (2) one year periods thereafter utilizing the Los Angeles County /U.S. Communities contract. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are appropriated in FY 2009 -10 operating budget by each department for the purchases of office supplies and cumulatively not anticipated to exceed $140,000 per year. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council: Authorize the City Manager to award a contract for office supplies from Office Depot in the amount not to exceed $140,000 for the period of July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010 and renew the contract for two (2) one -year periods ending June 30, 2012. Approved: Don Penman, City Manager Oil# DATE: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Administrative Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Hue C. Quach, Administrative Services Director Prepared by: Michael A. Casalou, Human Resource Administrator SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CONTINUE UTILIZING PERSONNEL LEGAL SERVICES UNDER CURRENT AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZE NEW FISCAL TERMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 -10 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending the City Council authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current agreements and authorize new fiscal terms. BACKGROUND The City currently has agreements for personnel legal services with the law firms of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and Best Best and Krieger. These firms provide a variety of employer - employee relations legal services including advice on labor related issues, defending the City in grievance and disciplinary appeal hearings and litigation defense. DISCUSSION The City has utilized the legal services of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and Best Best and Krieger for many years. Many employment legal matters require access to more than one attorney or firm. As an example, when a personnel investigation is required, it is imperative that an independent attorney that will not ultimately be defending the City in an administrative appeal or in a lawsuit be retained. These agreements provide access to these services on an as needed basis. Staff has been pleased with the expertise and services these firms have provided and wish to continue the existing agreements. The agreement with Best Best and Krieger is separate and apart from the general agreement the City has for City Attorney services. Current billing rates (Attorneys @ $150.00 - $230.00 per hour /Paraprofessionals @ $80.00 per hour) have not increased since 2004. The current billing rates for Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (Attorneys @ $ 160.00- $280.00 /Paraprofessionals @$95.00 - $120.00) have not increased since 2006. Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 Page 2of2 Staff is recommending the City Council authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current agreements that are in place and authorize new fiscal contract amounts for Liebert Cassidy Whitmore ($60,000) and Best Best & Krieger ($20,000). FISCAL IMPACT If approved by the City Council, adequate funding has been allocated in the Fiscal Year 2009 -10 Budget to continue the contracts with Liebert Cassidy Whitmore ($60,000) and Best Best & Krieger ($20,000). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: Authorize staff to continue utilizing personnel legal services under current agreements and authorize new fiscal terms for fiscal year 2009 -10. APPROVED: Donald Penman, City Manager DATE: July 21, 2009 STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director I Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: AWARD A PURCHASE ORDER TO HAAKER EQUIPMENT COMPANY FOR ONE (1) 2010 ALTERNATIVE FUEL STREET SWEEPER FOR STREET CLEANING MAINTENANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $236,226 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY Staff is recommending that the City Council award a purchase order contract to Haaker Equipment Company for the purchase of one (1) 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper in the amount of $236,226. A portion of this funding ($75,000 or 30% of its cost) will be from the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) grant while the remaining balance ($161,226 or 70% of the cost) will be funded from the 2009 -10 Equipment Replacement Fund. Haaker Equipment has agreed to sell the City a 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper at the same price as the alternative fuel street sweeper the City purchased in March 2009. DISCUSSION The 2001 Crosswind street sweeper meets the criteria established in the City's Vehicle Replacement Program for replacement. A new 2010 alternative fuel sweeper will be purchased to replace the 2001 diesel - fueled sweeper. Also, funds from the 2009 -10 Equipment Replacement Fund will be used to equip the new street sweeper withl emergency lights and communication equipment. The Air Quality Management District mandates that any purchase of heavy equipment such as a new street sweeper must be powered by an alternative fuel source. The new sweeper will operate on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) which is an approved AQMD alternative fuel source. Foothill Transit, located on Peck Road in Arcadia has agreed to allow the City's street sweeper's to utilize their station for fueling with CNG. Additionally, there is a public CNG fueling station in the City of Pasadena located on Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 Foothill Boulevard just west of Michillinda Avenue that can also be used to refuel the City's CNG vehicles. At the March 3, 2009 City Council Meeting, following a formal bid process, the City Council approved the purchase of one (1) 2009 alternative fuel street sweeper from Haaker Equipment Company. Staff approached Haaker Equipment Company to extend the cost of the 2009 street sweeper for a new 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper. Haaker agreed to the City's request to sell the City a 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper for the same price as the 2009 street sweeper. Staff recommends that the City Council award a purchase order to Haaker Equipment Company for one (1) 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper for street cleaning maintenance in the amount of $236,226. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the 2009 -10 Equipment Replacement Fund. A grant from AQMD will pay 30% of the cost for this vehicle or $75,000. RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the purchase of one (1) 2010 alternative fuel street sweeper in the amount of $236,226 from Haaker Equipment Company. 2. Waive any informality in the bid or bidding process. Approved by: Pbry) aW Pe Donald Penman, City Manager PM:TT:DM:jb Page 2 of 2 1FO�y� r Io..rP abd A.FW S, 1909 b b '�ua�ty °f4 °� STAFF REPORT Public Works Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council --� f FROM: Pat Malloy, 9 , Assistant City Manager/Public er /Public Works Services Director Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director Dave McVey, General Services Superintendent SUBJECT: AWARD A ONE ( 1) YEAR PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT EXTENSION TO DANIELS TIRE SERVICE FOR THE PURCHASE OF TIRES AND ACCESSORIES FOR CITY VEHICLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On June 20, 2006, the City Council approved a one (1) year purchase order agreement with optional contract extensions to Daniels Tire Service for the purchase of tires and related accessories for City vehicles. Daniels Tire Service is reaching the end of their second (2) contract extension and has submitted a written offer to extend the existing contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the existing agreement. The contractor's offer of extension does not reflect a change in price and all other conditions of the agreement are to remain in effect. Based on the excellent service provided by Daniels Tire Service from previous years, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Daniels Tire Service in the amount of $70,000 for the purchase and delivery of tires and related accessories as well as roadside assistance when required. DISCUSSION The Public Works Services Fleet Section is responsible for purchasing and maintaining tires and accessories for all City vehicles. It is critical that Fleet Services maintain the proper on -hand inventory levels to prevent an interruption to those vital services. Most items used in conjunction with tire maintenance are considered a revolving inventory item, and must be replenished to continue a smooth day -to -day operation of various vehicles in the City's fleet. Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 Daniels Tire Service has provided excellent service to the City in the past and has always responded to roadside service calls in a timely manner. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Daniels Tire Service in the amount of $70,000 for the purchase and delivery of tires and related accessories as well as roadside assistance when required. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds are budgeted in the 2009 -10 Operating Budget for this contract. RECOMMENDATION 1. Award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Daniels Tire Services in the amount of $70,000 for the purchase of tires and associated accessories for City vehicles. 2. Authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by: T- Donald Penman, City Manager PM:MA:jb Page 2 of 2 STAFFIR-EETORT Public Works Services Department DATE: July 21, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Direc r 1 Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director Craig Clark, Utilities Superintendent SUBJECT: AWARD A ONE (1) YEAR PURCHASE ORDER CONTRACT EXTENSION TO WATERLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE PURCHASE OF SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE TO DISINFECT THE CITY'S DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLY IN THE AMOUNT OF $45,000 Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On July 15, 2008, the City Council approved a one (1) year purchase order Agreement to Waterline Technologies, Inc. for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the City's domestic water supply. Waterline Technologies, Inc has submitted a written offer to extend their existing contract for an additional one (1) year in accordance with the conditions set forth in the existing Agreement. The contractor's offer of extension does not reflect a change in price and all other conditions of the agreement are to remain in effect. Based on the excellent service provided by Waterline Technologies, Inc. during the last year, staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Waterline Technologies,' Inc. for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the City's domestic water supply in the amount of $45,000. DISCUSSION The disinfection of drinking water by public water agencies is essential to eliminating water quality problems. Chlorination is an accepted method of water treatment for domestic water supplies as specified by the water purveyors permit issued by the California Department of Public Health. The City of Arcadia has used gaseous chlorine to disinfect the City's drinking water supply pumped from underground basins. However, chlorine gas is hazardous and Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 corrosive. For this reason, as part of a Capital Improvement Project, the Utilities Section removed all chlorine gas injection systems at the well sites and replaced them with liquid sodium hypochlorite solution in December 2006. Liquid sodium hypochlorite (commonly referred to as chlorine bleach) is much less hazardous to work with than gaseous chlorine and has the same effect and residual protection as chlorine gas. Waterline Technologies, Inc. has submitted a written offer to renew this contract in accordance with the existing Agreement without a cost increase. All other conditions of the Agreement are to remain the same. Staff recommends that the City Council award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Waterline Technologies, Inc. for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the City's domestic water supply in the amount of $45,000. FISCAL IMPACT Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the FY 2009 -10 Water Fund for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite. RECOMMENDATION Award a one (1) year purchase order contract extension to Waterline Technologies, Inc. for the purchase of sodium hypochlorite to disinfect the City's domestic water supply in the amount of $45,000. Approved by: Donald Penman, City Manager PM:TT:CC Page 2 of 2 DATE: July 21, 2009 ii it Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director- Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director Lubomir Tomaier, Principal Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVE THE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SYSTEM CAPACITY PLAN, MONITORING, MEASUREMENT AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS, SSMP AUDITS AND COMMUNICATION PROGRAM ELEMENTS OF THE SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIRED BY THE STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS Recommendation: Approve SUMMARY On May 2, 2006 The State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) adopted the General Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR). The WDR applies to all public collection system agencies in California and requires the City of Arcadia to prepare a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). For the past year and a half the Public Works Services Department has been preparing the SSMP in order to comply with the WDR. The SSMP consists of eleven (11) elements divided into three phases so that the State Board can monitor the City's progress in putting together the SSMP. The City Council has already approved phase 1 on November 6, 2007 and phase 2 on April 7, 2009. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following sections of Phase 3 of the SSMP in order to be in compliance with the State mandated Waste Discharge Requirement; Design and Performance Standards, System Capacity Plan, Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications, SSMP Audits and Communications Program. DISCUSSION In May 2006, the State Board adopted the WDR which requires all public wastewater collection system agencies in the State of California to document their sanitary sewer system activities. The SSMP is a document that describes the activities the City uses to manage the wastewater collection system effectively. Page 1 of 4 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 In June 2006, the City Council approved the Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan is a comprehensive document that addresses the needs of the City's sewer system for the next twenty (20) years. In doing so, it establishes the maintenance and improvement framework the City uses to make decisions on the future of the system. The Public Works Services Departments' current sewer management program has many elements required in the SSMP. These elements are being re- formatted and rearranged to meet the requirements of the WDR and to create the SSMP. All elements in the development and implementation of the SSMP must be approved by the City Council at public meetings and then certified by the State Board. There are three phases of the SSMP with a total of eleven (11) sections. Phase 1 : approved by City Council on November 6, 2007 1. Goals — describes the purpose of the SSMP, which is to minimize sewer back ups and to maintain a functional sewer system 2. Organization Structure — identifies the responsibilities of different positions throughout the City for the sanitary sewer system Phase 2 : approved by City Council on April 7, 2009 3. Emergency Response Plan — the policies and procedures that need to be followed in the event of a sanitary sewer backup 4. Operation and Maintenance Plan — the policies and procedures that outline how the sewer system is operated and maintained 5. Fats, Oils, and Grease Plan — the policies and procedures that outline the public education program to prevent undesirable materials from entering the sewer system 6. Legal Authority — establishes the City legal authority to enforce rules and restrictions to protect the sanitary sewer system Phase 3 : currently recommended to be approved 7. Design and Performance Standards The design and performance standards identify building, rehabilitation and inspection standards for the installation of new sewer pipes and for the rehabilitation and repair of the existing sewer pipes. (See Attachment, pg. 1) 8. System Capacity Plan The system evaluation and capacity assurance plan evaluates the City's system capacity of sewer flow and makes recommendations to improve where necessary to handle high flow periods or any deficiencies in City sewer pipes. (See Attachment, pg.2 and pg.3) 9. Monitoring and Program Modifications The monitoring measurement and program modifications section of the SSMP identifies how the City of Arcadia maintains relevant information to measure the effectiveness of the SSMP. (See Attachment, pg.4 and pg.5) 10. Program Audits The SSMP audit section explains how the City will evaluate the entire SSMP and ensure the adequacy of the City's sewer operations. (See Attachment, pg.6) Page 2 of 4 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 11. Communications Program The communication program section describes the measures that the City will take to get residents more involved in the sewer system management plan by allowing residents to provide input and make recommendations. (See Attachment, pg.7) Phase 3 of the Sewer System Management Plan is the final phase which, once approved, will bring the City into compliance with the State mandated Waste Discharge Requirement. All sections of the SSMP are designed to assist local agencies in eliminating sewer backups and provide guidelines on how to manage a sewer backup should one occur. The Attachment is only a description of Phase 3 because the first 2 phases have already been approved by the City Council and certified by the State Board. A copy of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the SSMP is available for the public at the Public Works Services Department. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following elements of the SSMP; Design and Performance Standards, System Capacity Plan, Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications, SSMP Audits and Communications Program. After the City Council approves these elements, the State Board will certify this portion of the SSMP and Arcadia will be in full compliance with the WDR. The Public Works Services Department will utilize the SSMP and the Sewer Master Plan for continued operation and maintenance of the City's sanitary sewer system. FISCAL IMPACT Sewer rates established for FY 2009 -10 include all costs associated with the WDR Program. The FY 2009 -10 Operating Budget for the sewer system includes all necessary costs associated with implementation of the WDR to be in compliance with state mandates. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Design and Performance Standards, System Capacity Plan, Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications, SSMP Audits and Communications Program Elements of the Sewer System Management Plan Required by the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements. Approved by Donald Penman, City Manager PM:TT:LT — Attachments Page 3 of 4 Attachment Section 5.0: Design and Performance Standards Desiqn and Construction Standards and Specification The City of Arcadia utilizes standards from the Green Book, 2009 edition to set the standards and specifications for public works construction of the sewer lines to make sure that the sewer system is being constructed and repaired the way sewer lines should be designed (See the Sewer Design and Performance Standards Manual located in the Public Works Services Department). To further guarantee that residents are aware of the wastewater collection facilities and how they should be properly designed and constructed, all sewer construction plans go through a review procedure. Design and construction standards and specifications can also be found in the City of Arcadia's Municipal Code (See Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code in the Sewer Design and Performance Standards Manual located in the Public Works Services Department). The Municipal code requires that all main line sewers and new house connections conform to requirements established by the City and prohibits a person from doing anything with wastewater collection facilities unless a permit is obtained from the City. Inspection and Testing Procedures and Standards The City of Arcadia has established and adopted procedures for the inspection of new sewer system construction, as well as facility repair and system rehabilitation. These projects include construction of new sewers and repair and rehabilitation of existing sewers. The City of Arcadia also utilizes the Green Book, 2009 edition to set the standard specifications for repair and rehabilitation of existing sewer lines. All new, rehabilitated and repaired sewer assets require inspection involving pressure testing and /or post construction closed circuit television inspection overseen by a City Inspector prior to accepting work. Section 8.0: System Capacity Assurance Plan In 2006, the City of Arcadia adopted its Sewer Master Plan and Hydraulic Modeling Report (SMP). This plan uses new computer technologies and graphical data to develop proper hydraulic models and capacity needs. This information is combined with various planning scenarios to identify sewer system deficiencies and drive the Sanitary Sewer Capital Improvement Program. The City of Arcadia's SMP, serves as a system evaluation and capacity assurance plan. It evaluates the adequacy of the City's waste water collection system infrastructure through the year 2026. The scope of this plan is comprised of four elements, a hydraulic analysis, identification of capital improvement projects, evaluation of system operation and maintenance procedures and the development of the sewer rate structure. As part of the SMP, Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) are determined. The projects are planned based on hydraulic analysis, CCTV inspections of the system and staff recommendations. The primary objective of the SMP is to develop a rehabilitation schedule to improve the hydraulic performance of the City's sanitary sewage collection system in order to prevent sewer backups, blockages or overflows, to reduce root buildup by relining pipe segments or increasing maintenance efforts and to develop a financial plan to implement the recommended CIPs. The SMP includes: Evaluation of the Sewer System and Hydraulic Flow A description of the City of Arcadia's capacity assessment procedures and current capacity rating system can be found in the SMP. It explains the flow monitoring services which were Page 1 of 5 Attachment completed in 2004. This report estimates peak flows associated with overflow events and examines the hydraulic deficiencies and major sources that contribute to peak flows that may create overflows. Based on results of the hydraulic model, projects are identified and areas that require improvement are determined. Sewer design criteria are also evaluated and are documented in the SMP. The Sewer Master Plan and Hydraulic Modeling Report is located at the Public Works Services Department. Design Criteria: Based on the evaluation of the hydraulic flow of the sewer system, the City of Arcadia was able to determine the design criteria essential for sufficient performance of system collection pipes. The evaluation allows the City to identify sewer pipes that could potentially have problems based on the size of the pipe and the hydraulic flow. The SMP provides sufficient data to insure that each sewer pipe has the appropriate capacity rating. Capacity Enhancement Measures: Capital Improvement Projects are developed for City owned pipes which are found to have hydraulic deficiencies or other problems that could potentially cause an overflow. Detailed schedules of completion dates and total projected costs for these projects are incorporated in the Capital Improvement Detail Form. Schedule: Sewer pipes that are identified as having hydraulic deficiencies as well as any other problems that could possibly cause a sewer spill are prioritized and placed in the CIP on Capital Improvement Detail forms to indicate the start and completion dates. Section 9.0: Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications The City of Arcadia maintains all information on the work preformed on the sewer system by storing electronic and hard copies of work records. Maintaining all data relevant to work performed on the sewer system allows the City to prioritize appropriate SSMP activities. Primarily work reports consist of preventative maintenance schedules and work orders. The City of Arcadia cleans all sewer lines annually and adheres to a high priority maintenance schedule that requires additional cleaning. These activities are documented in daily reports of work performed on the sewer lines to insure annual and high priority cleaning schedules are met. These reports are compiled into monthly reports. Color coded maps show which portions of the sewer lines must be cleaned each month and are compared to daily work reports to insure that the areas are cleaned on their appropriate schedule. All Sewer Spill Overflows (SSOs) are tracked in the City database and also reported online to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Storing information on SSO locations allows the City to stay on top of specific areas where sewer spills may potentially reoccur. As necessary, these locations are placed on the high priority maintenance schedule which increases the cleaning frequency for each location. Tracking high priority areas allows the City to work with local restaurants to make sure that grease is properly disposed of and that best management techniques are being practiced to protect the sewer lines. Page 2 of 5 Attachment SSMP Implementation and Effectiveness Through Performance Indicators, the City of Arcadia can monitor and measure the performance of elements of the SSMP. Performance Indicators are used to compare SSMP performance with other City agencies and identify the effectiveness of program elements Assess the Success of the Preventative Maintenance Program The City of Arcadia will consider the preventative program successful when the City has no sewer backups annually. When the sewer lines are cleaned according to schedule, the preventative maintenance program is successfully working. Arcadia has established a goal of no sewer spills per year and values the preventative maintenance program that is currently in place. Following the preventative maintenance program and the high priority maintenance schedule the City will be able to achieve its goal. Updating SSMP Program Elements Based on monitoring and performance evaluations, the program elements of the SSMP will be updated or modified as appropriate. At a minimum, Arcadia will update their SSMP every five (5) years and will include any significant program changes. When the SSMP has been updated, it will be presented to the City Council at a public meeting and submitted on the CIWQS web page for re certification. Identify and Illustrate SSO Trends Arcadia has mapped all sewer lines and can easily identify and illustrate SSO trends, including the frequency, location and volume. This information is important because it allows City staff to place sewer lines with reoccurring problems on a high priority maintenance list, which will be frequently observed and maintained. Once certain locations have been identified as high priority areas, the City is able to inform restaurants located near the sewer lines of how to practice best management techniques to assure the sewer lines are being protected. Section 10.0: SSMP Audits The City of Arcadia will conduct an internal audit and report on the SSMP every two years beginning in 2011. The audit will provide insight on how effectively the SSMP is being implemented and will provide information about the challenges and successes in implementing the SSMP. The audit will involve input from personnel that work within the sanitary sewer system, observations, equipment inspections and reviews. The audit will allow for discussion of deficiencies in the City's SSMP Program and will include steps on how the City plans to correct any issues that are found. Section 11.0: Communications Program Communication The City of Arcadia will provide all residents and businesses located in the City with status updates on the development and implementation of the SSMP and will consider any comments submitted back in response. Information on the SSMP will be sent as attachments in water bills, through the City newsletter and brochures and /or through the City's web page. Page 3 of 5 Attachment SSMP Availability Copies of the SSMP will be maintained in the Public Works Services Department. An electronic copy of the SSMP will be kept in the Public Works File under P: \Sewer \Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). Copies of the Sewer Master Plan or CCTV analysis can be found in the Public Work Services Department and requested to be reviewed at the Public Works Services Department. The SSMP will be available to the Regional Water Quality Control Board upon request. Page 4 of 5 a 00 �-ql 0 0 • 0 DATE: July 21, 2009 Public Works Services Department TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pat Malloy, Assistant City Manager /Public Works Services Directo Prepared by: Tom Tait, Deputy Public Works Services Director SUBJECT: LEASE AGREEMENT FOR 2.500 ACRE FEET OF WATER PRODUCTION RIGHTS IN THE MAIN SAN GABRIEL BASIN FROM AZUSA VALLEY WATER COMPANY Recommendation: Receive and File SUMMARY The City of Arcadia is allowed to pump a limited amount of water from Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (Main Basin) each year, at no cost to the City. This water is the City's adjudicated right to groundwater from the Main Basin and each year's allowance is established based on the current groundwater level in the basin. This year, the City's adjudicated right was set at 7,616 acre feet of water (a.f.), while actual water production was 10,781 a.f.. The 3,165 difference must be replaced at a cost of $450 per acre foot if the water is purchased through the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster ( Watermaster), which is the normal the source for replacement water. Last month, staff was approached by Azusa Valley Water Company with an offer to sell the City 2,500 acre feet of water at $414 per acre foot, which can be used to partially satisfy the City's obligation for replacement water. Staff accepted their offer, and will pay $1,035,000 for this water, which will save $36 per acre foot or $90,000 for this water. The remaining balance, 665 a.f., will be purchased this summer from Watermaster at $450 per acre foot. This report is for information purposes only, no action is required. DISCUSSION In 1973, as a result of overproduction of water from the Main San Gabriel Groundwater Basin (Main Basin), Watermaster was created by the Superior court of Los Angeles County to administer and manage the water quality and supply of the basin. The Judgment adjudicated Basin water rights and established the framework for Basin Page 1 of 2 Mayor and City Council July 21, 2009 management. The City of Arcadia's adjudicated share of natural safe yield of basin groundwater is 4.23 %. Although there is no limit on the quantity of water that may be pumped by agencies from the Main Basin, groundwater production in excess of natural safe yield requires purchase of replacement water to recharge the basin. For Fiscal Year 2008 -09, the City of Arcadia was allowed to pump 7,616 acre feet of water from the Main Basin. This year, the City pumped 10,781 acre feet of water. As a result, the City of Arcadia over pumped 3,165 acre feet from the Main Basin and consequently is responsible for replacement of this water. The replenishment rate for water from the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (Watermaster) for this year has been set at $450 per acre foot. Fortunately, Azusa Valley Water Company, owned by the City of Azusa offered to sell the City 2,500 acre feet of water at $414 per acre foot, which can be used to partially satisfy the City's obligation for replacement water. Staff accepted their offer, and will pay $1,035,000 for this water, which will save $36 per acre foot or $90,000. The remaining balance, 665 a.f., will be purchased this summer from Watermaster at $450. As a rule of thumb, one acre -foot of water is the volume of water sufficient to cover one acre of land to the depth of one foot. An acre foot of water is enough water to meet the annual demands of a single family household. In August 2008, the City Council formally implemented a voluntary water conservation program to reduce water use by ten percent (10 %). Through public education, City staff continues to encourage residents to use water more efficiently and eliminate water waste. Future water conservation efforts will enable the City to cut down on the amount of replenishment water that has to be purchased from the Main Basin annually helping to keep lower water rates. FISCAL IMPACT: Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the FY 2009 -10 Water Operations Fund for the purchase of replacement water. RECOMMENDATION Receive and file. Approved by: Donald Penman, City Manager ►7�1 Page 2 of 2