Arcadia City Council
March 18, 2025

Figure No. 6 – Center Plaza along Santa Anita Avenue

Figure No. 7 – Public Plaza on the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place and Entry Plaza adjacent to parking access off of Morlan Place

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

The second level of the Arcadia Town Center will offer 21,825 square feet of shared open space for residents, distributed across various courtyards. These courtyards will feature amenities such as seating areas with lounge chairs, a swimming pool, spa, bar becue grills, and landscaped surroundings (see Figure No. 8 below for the second -level floor plan). Additional open space will be available on the fourth and fifth floors, with access to common deck areas. In total, 38,713 square feet of open space is being proposed, significantly exceeding the 18,100 square feet required by Code (more than double the minimum requirement). In addition to the open space, the Applicant also plans to include a recreation center, fitness center, and two clubhouses for residents.

Figure No. 8 – Second Level Floor Plan showing open space areas Arcadia Town Center will provide a total of 378 parking spaces consisting of 273 residential spaces within the basement level and ground level, 59 guest parking spaces on the ground level, and 46 commercial spaces on the ground level – as later discussed under the Analysis section of the staff report.

ANALYSIS
The subject site is zoned DMU, which allows for the development of the Arcadia Town Center as a mixed-use project, including incidental outdoor dining, as permitted by Development

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Code Section 9102.05.020, with the approval of a Minor Use Permit. Residential uses in this zone are allowed only in conjunction with commercial uses and must be located above ground-floor commercial spaces or adjacent to commercial development. The Arcadia Town Center offers a well -balanced mix of residential unit sizes and is designed to effectively extend the commercial presence of Downtown Arcadia across Santa Anita Avenue, while introducing a new residential population that will support the area's commercial viability. The proposed outdoor dining areas comply with the incidental outdoor dining regulations in Development Code Section 9104.02.240 and are fully contained within the project site, ensuring no disruption to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. These outdoor dining spaces will enhance the curb appeal of the Arcadia Town Center and contribute to the activation of the surrounding commercial area.

Properties in the DMU zone allow a maximum building height of 60’-0”. The Arcadia Town Center will comply with this limit, as it will feature five stories with a maximum height of 60’- 0”. The Development Code mandates a minimum open space requirement of 100 square feet per unit, totaling 18,100 square feet for the project. The Arcadia Town Center will provide 38,713 square feet of open space across both common and private open areas, exceeding the minimum requirement. Additionally, the development will meet all other Code requirements, including density, floor area ratio, setbacks, and parking. The proposed tentative tract map also complies with the subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the State Subdivision Map Act, and all requirements set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Architectural Design

The Applicant’s Architects carefully considered the City’s Design Guidelines and City Center Design Plan when designing the site to ensure the project aligned with the City’s vision and complemented the existing commercial streetscape of Downtown Arcadia.

Several key iterations of the project were developed during the planning process, including a reduction in the amount of commercial space to enhance the project's commercial viability. Ultimately, all commercial units were positioned along the street frontages, creating new commercial opportunities along the City’s main thoroughfares — Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue—supporting the City’s broader goal for Downtown Arcadia. The incorporation of public plazas, along with outdoor seating and dining areas, will activate the Arcadia Town Center, fostering connectivity between the residential units, commercial spaces, and the broader Downtown Arcadia area.

The Arcadia Town Center will be a contemporary -style building featuring a color palette of cool, neutral tones such as grey, tan, and off-white. The design incorporates a variety of materials, including sand-finished plaster walls, stamped concrete, crown molding, fiber cement veneer panels, metal awnings and railings, and bronze- framed vinyl windows.

The two corner towers —one at the intersection of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue, and the other at Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place— will serve as key focal points for travelers along the City’s major thoroughfares.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

The corner at Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue will feature a sleek, glazed glass façade that can be internally illuminated, creating a striking visual element at one of the city's busiest intersections. This corner design, with its modern curved gl ass, provides visual interest to both elevations and highlights the commercial spaces. On the opposite corner at Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place, a vertical anodized aluminum feature with silhouettes of peacock feathers rising upwards will create a dis tinctive and artistic element. This design also serves as a screening mechanism for a roof deck located on the fifth floor.

Each corner feature is intentionally designed to be different, offering a sense of segmentation while maintaining a cohesive overall design. Both corners will also include public plazas on the ground floor, enhancing the street -level experience and providi ng entrances to the residential lobbies. These corner elements will add both aesthetic value and functionality, contributing to the vibrancy of the surrounding area (see Figure No. 9 below for renderings of each corner feature and the commercial units.)

Figure No. 9 – Renderings showing corner features and commercial units on ground floor

The contemporary design for the Arcadia Town Center fits in with other contemporary/modern designed buildings in the area such as the adjacent Mercedes -

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Benz of Arcadia building (101 N. Santa Anita Avenue), the IMS Executive Suites building (150 N. Santa Anita Avenue), and the recently approved Alexan Mixed-Use development that is currently under construction. The Arcadia Town Center will be comparable in height to the Mercedes Benz of Arcadia building just north of the site which has a total height of 52 feet. Additionally, this development will be lower in height compared to the Alexan Mixed-Use, which was approved at 85 feet in height and the IMS Executi ve Suites building, which is taller than the Alexan.

The design of the project creates a clear distinction between the residential levels and the ground-floor commercial spaces. The ground- floor commercial units feature aluminum and glass storefronts, complemented by a stamped concrete band above the units, visually separating them from the residential floors above. The use of varying materials and colors, along with horizontal and vertical articulation, helps to break up the building’s mass. Overall, the proposed design aligns with the City’s Design Guidelines and is compatible with the surrounding area.

The design of the Arcadia Town Center complies with the City Center Design Plan, which aims to enhance pedestrian activity, promote street interaction, and ensure that buildings step back to respect the character of existing single- story developments in Downtown Arcadia. The Arcadia Town Center has been thoughtfully designed to incorporate public spaces and dining areas for both residents and visitors, with generous setbacks from the street to create inviting outdoor areas. Public plazas along the street fr ontage will have setbacks of over 22'-9", while portions along Huntington Drive will feature an 8'-6" setback to accommodate outdoor dining in front of the restaurant spaces. Additionally, the second and third levels of the building will step back to provi de open space for the residential areas, with vertical articulation that adds visual interest. The fourth and fifth levels will step back even further, enhancing the building's scale and relationship to the surrounding area (see Figure No. 10 for an oblique view of the Arcadia Town Center).

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Figure No. 10 – Aerial Perspective of the Arcadia Town Center

Parking

Arcadia Town Center will include one level of subterranean parking and one ground level of parking accessed via a right -in/right-out driveway off of Huntington Drive and a driveway that is accessible in either direction off of Morlan Place. The Development Code requires 1.5 spaces for every residential unit and one guest parking space for every three units. This amounts to a total of 332 required spaces for the residential component which the Arcadia Town Center has provided. 235 residential parking spaces will be located in the subterranean level and the remaining 97 residential and guest parking spaces will be located on the ground level. Both the residential and guest parking will be gated. For commercial uses, the Development Code requires one space for every 200 square feet of commercial space, which amounts to 61 required spaces. However, a 25% parking reduction is applied for commercial uses that are located within a quarter mile of a light rail station. Therefore, only 46 parking spaces are required and provided for commercial use. The commercial spaces are provided on the ground level of the development with through-access within the garage. The drive aisles within the parking garage have been designed to limit the number of dead ends to improve circulation. Both the parking circulation and the driveway entries have been thoroughly reviewed by the City Engineer.

Off-site parking is available on the surrounding streets of the Arcadia Town Center which may also serve customers of the commercial uses and residents. Two- hour parking is available on Santa Anita Avenue all day. Two- hour parking is available on Huntington Drive from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and has no time limitations outside of those hours. All day parking is available on Morlan Place.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

The table below in Figure No. 11 provides a summary of the parking required and provided for the project.

Code Required
Parking
Parking Space
Applicable Parking
Ratio
Proposed Parking
Spaces
Residential Unis 272 1.5 Per Unit 272
Residential Guests 60 1 Per Every 3 Units 60
Commercial 46 1 Per 200 SF w/ 25%
Reduction
46 Total 378 378

Figure No. 11 – Parking Summary

The Code also requires bicycle parking for mixed -use developments at a rate of 0.2 spaces per residential unit , 5 % of non- residential parking requirements for short term bicycle parking, and 5% of non- residential parking requirements for long term bicycle parking. Based on 181 residential units and 46 commercial parking spaces, 37 bicycle parking spaces are required for the residential component, 3 bicycle parking spaces are required for short term commercial parking, and 3 bicycle parking spaces are required for long term commercial parking. The project will provide all 43 bicycle parking spaces disbursed throughout the ground level of the development , more than what is required per the Development Code. Additionally, the project will meet all ADA and electric vehicle parking requirements by providing a total of 14 ADA spaces and 39 electric vehicle spaces.

During construction of the project, construction trucks and related equipment will be staged on-site or on designated off-site locations that would not adversely affect access or parking within Downtown Arcadia. A detailed construction parking and staging plan will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project per Condition of Approval No. 2 to ensure this is the case.

Traffic Impact Study

As part of the MND, a Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H to the MND) was prepared by Psomas, an environmental consulting firm, that includes Level of Service (LOS) analysis, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) screening analysis. Based on the study, the proposed mixed-use development is expected to generate 867 new daily trips over a 24-hour period with 75 total new trips in the morning peak hour and 67 total new trips in the evening peak hour. Trips generated by the proposed project were evaluated to determine any expected impacts on the traffic flow through the area. A total of two existing intersections and two project driveway intersections were analyzed as part of this project, and they were:

PARKING
Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

1. Morlan Place/Wheeler Avenue and Santa Anita Avenue

2. Huntington Drive/Santa Anita Avenue

3. Huntington Drive/South Driveway

4. Morlan Place/North Driveway
The traffic impact study determined that all four intersections are expected to function at a satisfactory Level of Service (LOS). Specifically, the intersection of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue is expected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours (currently the intersection operates at LOS C or better) , while the intersection of Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place is expected to maintain its current level, operating at LOS E or better during peak hours. While LOS D or better is considered acceptable citywide, LOS E is acceptable for all sites in Downtown Arcadia according to City standards. Both driveway entries are projected to achieve LOS C or better during peak hours, ensuring that the proposed project will not cause unacceptable queueing conditions entering or exiting the site. These intersections are illustrated in Figure No. 12 below. Although LOS analysis is no longer a part of the CEQA process, this study was conducted as part of the City’s traffic planning, which is a separate process from CEQA.

Figure No. 12 – Traffic Impact Analysis Intersections Studied The traffic impact analysis for the Arcadia Town Center, based on Vehicles Travelled per Mile (VMT), complies with CEQA requirements. Since the project is located within a

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Transit Priority Area (TPA), it is exempt from further VMT analysis under CEQA guidelines. A Transit Priority Area is defined as an area within a half-mile radius of a major transit stop. For this project, the relevant transit stop is the Los Angeles Count y Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) A Line (formerly the L Line and Gold Line) Light Rail Station. This proximity to a major transit hub qualifies the Arcadia Town Center for screening out of additional VMT analysis, in accordance with the City’s guidelines.

Sewer Upsizing Required
The site is currently served by an eight-inch sewer line on Santa Anita Avenue and a ten- inch sewer line on Morlan Place, both of which flow into an existing 18-inch Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD) trunk line located at the intersection of Camino Real Avenue and 1st Avenue.

To accommodate future growth in the Santa Anita corridor —including this project and other approved or planned developments - the City is undertaking a sewer upsizing project. This project involves replacing approximately 1.3 miles of sewer line along Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Avenue with a 12- inch pipeline. The upsizing is part of a capital improvement plan to handle increased wastewater generation. The project is expected to be completed by the Public Works Department by the end of the 2026-27 fiscal year, as this is a 3-year project beginning in the 2024-25.

As a condition of approval for the Arcadia Town Center, the Applicant will contribute nine percent of the total cost of the sewer upsizing project to help fund the improvements, given that the project will utilize the pipeline. The sewer upsizing must be c ompleted before the City can issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the Arcadia Town Center. While the sewer upsizing is essential for the project’s operation, it is being carried out by the City and is not part of the project’s direct scope of work, as addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

FINDINGS
Minor Use Permit
Section 9107.09.050(B) of the Development Code requires that for a Minor Use Permit to be granted, it must be found that all of the following findings can be satisfied. In this case, the Minor Use Permit being requested is for a mixed-use development in a downtown zone and for incidental outdoor dining.

1. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and is allowed within the applicable zone, subject to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit, and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code.

Facts to Support This Finding: Approval of the proposed mixed- use development and incidental outdoor dining would be consistent with the General Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Plan Land Use Designation of Downtown Mixed Use, which allows a residential density of 80 units per acre and a commercial floor area ratio of 1.0. This land use designation allows mixed- use developments and strongly encourages a pedestrian-oriented environment with a complementary mix of commercial and residential uses. The residential units will provide vitality to the area and the proposed commercial uses and restaurants with outdoor dining will help generate increased activity in Downtown Arcadia and along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive, and it will continue to convey a commercial appearance along the street. The Arcadia Town Center complies with all the development standards within the DMU zone, including but not limited to setbacks, height, open space, density, and parking. As such, the project meets the Development and Municipal Code requirements . As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Development Serv ices Department prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project, which determined that the project, with mitigation measures, will have less -than-significant impacts.

Therefore, the proposed mixed -use development and outdoor dining will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan and is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:

Land Use and Community Design Element

• Policy LU- 1.1: Promote new infill and redevelopment projects that are consistent with the City’s land use and compatible with surrounding existing uses.
• Policy LU- 1.8: Encourage development of types that support transit and other alternative forms of transportation, including bicycling and walking. • Policy LU-4.2: Encourage residential development that enhances the visual character, quality, and uniqueness of the City’s neighborhoods and districts. • Policy LU-4.3: Require the provision of adequate private and common open space for residential units. Require sufficient on-site recreational facilities to meet the daily needs of residents, if possible, commensurate with the size of the development.
• Policy LU- 6.4: Encourage design approaches that create a cohesive, vibrant look and that minimize the appearance of expansive parking lots on major commercial corridors for new or redeveloped uses. • Policy LU-6.5: Where mixed use is permitted, promote commercial uses that are complementary to adjacent residential uses.

2. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

Facts to Support This Finding: The subject site will be 2.19 acres in size (after the dedication to the City for public right -of-way improvements) and is located in the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zone. The site is located within the City’s Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Downtown area and is bounded by Mercedes Benz of Arcadia to the north across Morlan Place, Denny’s restaurant and other commercial businesses to the east across Santa Anita Avenue, the Arcadia Elks Lodge and other commercial uses to the west, and the Arcadia County Park to the south. The proposed mixed- use development will provide ground- floor commercial uses which will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The project will also provide a residential use which will bring an increase to the residential population in the Downtown area that will support the commercial uses in the area. Additionally, outdoor dining will provide added curb appeal to the Arcadia Town Center and activate the commercial area around the development. As such, the Arcadia Town Center meets the intent of the City’s General Plan vision of the of the DMU zone, which is to encourage a mix of residential and commercial uses near public transit.

Therefore, the proposed development will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity.

3. The site is physically suitable in terms of:

a. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use in order to accommodate the use, site improvements, loading, and parking.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project site will be 2.19 acres in size and can physically accommodate the proposed mixed -use development and outdoor dining. The residential component of the p roject will provide a density of approximately 79.7 units per acre, which is in compliance with the maximum density for the DMU zone . The commercial component of the project will have a floor area ratio (FAR) far below the maximum allowable FAR of 1.0. All outdoor dining areas have been designed to be located on private property and will not interfere with pedestrian access on or around the site. Additionally, the amount of on-site parking that will be provided for the development meets the minimum required by the Development Code and the project is in close proximity to the Metro A Line Station. Therefore, the site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed mixed- use development.

b. Streets and highways adequate to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access.

Facts to Support This Finding: The project site is located on the northwest corner of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. These streets are designed to be adequate in width and pavement type to carry emergency vehicles and traffic generated by the proposed use on the site.

c. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.).

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Facts to Support This Finding: The Fire and Police Departments have reviewed the application and determined that there will be no impacts to public protection services. As part of the environmental review process, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) determined that Fire and Police protection services would not be impacted. The need for new or altered Fire or Police services is usually associated wit h substantial population growth. The Arcadia Town Center would provide approximately

0.82% of the projected population of 62,200 persons by 2045, as projected by the Southern California Association of Governments. This population growth is not considered substantial enough to require new facilities to provide public protection services. Therefore, no impacts to public protection services are anticipated.

d. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.).

Facts to Support This Finding: As part of the development, new utility connections, including connections for potable water and storm drainage, will be required. Implementation of best management practices by the Applicant during construction and operation would ensure impacts to water quality do not occur. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities through interconnection with existing utilities within City right-of-way abutting the site. The development will require a fair -share payment for upsizing of a sewer line, which is anticipated to be built by the City.

4. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or welfare of the surrounding properties . The project will be compatible with the surrounding commercial uses in the general area. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the Arcadia Town Center analyzed all the potential impacts and all the project impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant level with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. Therefore, no impacts to the uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located are anticipated.

Tentative Tract Map
Section 9105.03.060(A) of the Development Code requires that for a Tentative Tract Map to be granted, it must be found that all of the following findings can be satisfied:

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

1. The proposed map, subdivision design, and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and the Subdivisions Division of the Development Code.

Facts in Support of the Finding: Approval of the Arcadia Town Center with a tentative tract map to merge five lots together as one parcel and then subdivide the airspace for condominium purposes is consistent with the Downtown Mixed Use land use designation. The land use designation is intended to accommodate mixed-use development with a residential density of up to 80 units per acre, and a floor area ratio of 1.0. The Arcadia Town Center is located in the Downtown area and is in conformance with the City’s General Plan, Development Code, and the Subdivision Map Act. The site is physically suitable for this type of development, and the approval of the architectural design for the building is compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood.

2. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The subject site will measure approximately

2.19 acres in size and is located within the Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) zone. The DMU zone has a minimum residential density of 80 units per acre, and a floor area ratio of 1.0 for non- residential uses. The Arcadia Town Center proposes a residential density of 79. 7, and a commercial FAR of 0.13. Therefore, the development is in compliance with the Development Code and the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. In addition, there are no physical impediments to the development of this site for residential condominiums.

3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed tentative tract map involves merging five lots into a single parcel and subdividing the air space for the mixed- use development. This is considered a minor subdivision on an infill site within an urbanized area. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have assessed the potential biological impacts of the project on the natural environment and determined that no significant effects would occur. As a result, the project will not cause substantial environmental harm or harm to fish, wildlife, or their habitats.

4. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health or safety problems.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision is to merge five lots together as one parcel and subdivide the air space of the proposed mixed- use development. The construction of the Arcadia Town Center will be done in compliance with Building and Fire Codes and all other applicable regulations. The proposed density will be below the maximum allowed by the DMU zone and the Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

City’s existing infrastructure will adequately serve the new development. In addition, the Project meets all health and safety requirements and will not cause any public health or safety problems.

5. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision (This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision).

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will not impose on any public easements and will provide dedications for public sidewalk access to the City along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive. Therefore, no conflicts for the use of any easements are expected.

6. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the community sewer system will not result in violation of existing requirements specified by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The Arcadia Public Works Services Department determined that the City’ infrastructure will adequately serve the Arcadia Town Center. The City is currently in the process of upsizing an existing sewer line along Santa Anita Avenue that serves the project for which the Applicant will pay a fair share cost to help fund the project. Upon completion, the sewer line will adequately serve the project. Additionally, the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board will be satisfied.

7. That the proposed design and site improvements of the subdivision conform to the regulations of this Development Code and the regulations of any public agency having jurisdiction by law.

Facts in Support of the Finding: The proposed subdivision, as conditioned, complies with all regulations within the Development Code and all other applicable regulations.

Architectural Design Review
Section 9107.19.050(F) of the Development Code requires that following findings must be met for the approval of the design.

1. The proposed development will be in compliance with all applicable development standards and regulations in the Development Code.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is in compliance with all the development standards required in the DMU and Downtown Overlay zone Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

such as FAR, maximum height, setbacks, and parking. Therefore, the project meets the intent of this finding.

2. The proposed development will be consistent with the objectives and standards of the applicable Design Guidelines.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will feature a contemporary architectural style, incorporating a diverse color palette and high- quality exterior materials. This design will establish a prominent focal point at one of the City’s major intersections, complementing t he existing modern buildings along Santa Anita Avenue while contributing to a vibrant atmosphere in the Downtown area. The design also includes several outdoor plazas on the ground floor, enhancing the commercial experience by encouraging walkability and activating public spaces. Additionally, two corner features will serve as visually striking focal points, drawing attention and enhancing the building’s overall aesthetic appeal. These distinctive elements will create an invit ing environment, making the Arcadia Town Center a standout addition to the area. As a result, the proposed design is in full alignment with the City’s Design Guidelines.

3. The proposed development will be compatible in terms of scale and aesthetic design with surrounding properties and developments.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center is compatible with adjacent sites such as the adjacent Mercedes -Benz of Arcadia building (101 N.

Santa Anita Avenue), the IMS Executive Suites building (150 N. Santa Anita Avenue), and the approved Alexan project regarding scale, design, and creating a Downtown feel to the area along Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive. The design of the Arcadia Town Center thoughtfully incorporates the ideas within the City’s Center Design Plan, which promotes incr eased pedestrian activity , enhances street interaction, and building setbacks that respect the overall scale and mass. To align with these principles, the Arcadia Town Center is setback from Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue, creating inviting public spaces and dining areas for residents and visitors. As a result, the Arcadia Town Center seamlessly integrates with the surrounding properties and developments as this area is in transition to allow for more mixed-use development.

4. The proposed development will have an adequate and efficient site layout in terms of access, vehicular circulation, parking and landscaping.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center features a well - planned site layout, with two driveway access points designed to ensure smooth traffic flow within the parking garage. Both driveway access and circulation have been thoroughly reviewed by the City Engineer and are included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to confirm their adequacy for servicing the development. The required parking is being provided across two levels, minimizing dead-end drive Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

aisles to enhance circulation throughout the site. Therefore, the site will be adequate in terms of parking and circulation.

5. The proposed development will be in compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in Subparagraph 9107.19.040.C.5 for compliance with the Development Code and all other applicable City regulations and policies, the General Plan and any appliable specific plan, the Design Guidelines, policies and standards, and efficient site and layout design.

Facts to Support This Finding: The Arcadia Town Center will fully comply with all applicable standards, the General Plan, and relevant design guidelines, contributing positively to the community’s vision for Downtown Arcadia. Located within the DMU zone, the project allows for a residential density of up to 80 units per acre and a building height of up to 60 feet. The proposed mass, scale, and design adhere to the City’s Design Guidelines and City Center Design Plan, ensuring compatibility with existing developments in the Downtown area. The development will also support the General Plan’s objectives by engaging the streetscape with inviting commercial storefronts and public plazas at the ground level. Additionally, the design incorporates adequate articulation, breaking up the building mass into distinct segments along each street frontage by positioning public plazas and stepping back the upper floors. As a result, the design of the proposed mixed-use development aligns with the City’s Design Guidelines, Ci ty Center Design Plan, and all other applicable standards.

All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with by the property owner/applicant to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director , Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director, or their respective designees.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND) was prepared for the Arcadia Town Center (refer to Attachment No. 5 ). It was determined that the project with mitigation measures will have less -than-significant impacts for the following areas: Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation, Utilities and Service Systems, and Tribal Cultural Resources. A detailed review is included in the Initial Study.

The mitigation measures have been added as conditions of approval (Condition of Approval Nos. 53-59) for the project.

In accordance with Section 21091 of CEQA and Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND for the Arcadia Town Center was circulated for public review and comments for 30 days from November 21 , 2024, to December 20 , 2024 . CEQA also requires the lead agency (City of Arcadia) to specify the location and custodian of the Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the lead agency’s decision is based. During this time period, public agencies, organizations, and the public in general were afforded the opportunity to review the Draft IS/MND and submit written comments regarding the documents and the proposed project.

During the comment period, staff received two comments from the following agency/organization:
• Caltrans
• Lozeau Drury on behalf of Supporter’s Alliance for Environmental Responsibility Copies of each of the comment letters and a Response to Comments (RTC) to each of the comment letters are also included within Attachment No. 5.

Upon review of the comment letters received for the Draft IS/MND, it was determined that the comments do not change the conclusion of the environmental determination for the project. The MND concluded that the project will have less than significant impacts with the implementation of mitigation measures . As such, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be provided to ensure that these mitigations are met.

PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
A public hearing notice for this item was published in the Arcadia Weekly newspaper, was posted on the City’s website, at the City Council Chambers, and the Arcadia Public Library, and mailed to the property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property on November 21, 2024. Except for the comments listed above related to the Draft MND, as of January 9, 2024, no additional public comments were received.

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2164, a dopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, and COD 22-25 for the new Arcadia Town Center mixed-use development, subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the Property Owner/Applicant in a manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and recommended for approval to the City Council for Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19-11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21- 02 (83325), Architectural Design Review No. ADR 19- 09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22-25, subject to the satisfaction of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee. Noncompliance with the conditions of approval shall be grounds for immediate suspension or revocation of any approvals. Any minor changes to the development, including the outdoor dining area may be approved administratively by the Deputy Development Services Director.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

2. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit a haul route map and staging plan to Planning Services prior to issuance of a grading permit.

3. The Property Owner/Applicant shall be responsible for the repair of all damage to public improvements in the public right -of-way resulting from construction related activities, including, but not limited to, the movement and/or delivery of equipment, materials, and soils to and/or fr om the site. This shall be determined by the City Engineer and/or Public Works Services Director during construction and up until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

4. A comprehensive landscaping plan consistent with the conceptual landscape plan approved as part of the p roject must be submitted to Building Services for plan check and must be prepared by a licensed landscape architect , subject to the approval of the Deputy Development Services Director or designee.

5. Grading plans shall be submitted to Building Services . The grading plans shall indicate all site improvements and shall indicate complete drainage paths of all drainage water run-off.

6. The project shall comply with the latest adopted edition of the following codes as applicable:
a. California Building Code
b. California Electrical Code
c. California Mechanical Code
d. California Plumbing Code
e. California Energy Code
f. California Fire Code
g. California Green Building Standards Code
h. California Existing Building Code
i. Arcadia Municipal Code

7. The project shall comply with Chapter 35A Multiple Family Construction Standards in Arcadia Municipal Code Section 8130.20.

8. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, a dedication along the right -of-way of Santa Anita Avenue shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate a 10 foot parkway for sidewalk and utility purposes and at the corner of Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place to provide a corner cut -off for a standard accessible access ramp.

9. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map, a dedication of 1’-6” along the right-of-way of Huntington Drive shall be dedicated to the City to accommodate a 13’-6” wide parkway for sidewalk and utility purposes.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

10. All above ground utilities serving the site shall be removed, including all utility poles along property boundaries, and all new utility services shall be p laced underground.

11. Prior to approval of the Final Tract Map or the issuance of a demolition permit, whichever comes first, the Property Owner/Applicant shall either construct or post security for all public improvements shown on the Tentative Tract Map No. 83325 and the following item(s):

a. Remove and replace existing sidewalk, curb, and gutter along all property frontages from property line to property line to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Remove and replace all driveway approaches per City standard plan. c. Coordinate with Public Works Services on the protection or replacement of street trees.

12. A 16” weld steel water main with 56 psi static pressure is available on Huntington Drive and a 6” cast iron water main with 53 psi static pressure is available on Morlan Place. Both mains are available for domestic water and/or fire service. The Applicant/Property Owner shall provide calculations to determine the maximum domestic demand, maximum commercial demand, and maximum fire demand in order to verify the required sizes of water services.

13. The Property Owner/Applicant shall provide separate water services and meters for each separate structure as well as designated services for specific residential, commercial, and irrigation uses . Domestic water service for residential condominiums shall be provided by a common master meter with an approved reduced pressure backflow device for meter services protection.

14. An approved back flow prevention device shall be installed for commercial use.

15. In the event that fire suppression is common to the complex, a separate fire service with Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) shall be required as directed by the Fire Marshal. Fire protection requirements shall be as stipulated by the Arcadia Fire Department and shall be conformed to the Arcadia Standard Plan. All fire services shall be isolated from domestic water services with approved back flow prevention devices.

16. A Water Meter Clearance Application shall be submitted to the Public Works Services Department prior to final plan check approval.

17. New water service installations shall be installed by the Applicant/Property Owner.

Installation shall be according to the specifications of the Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division. Abandonment of existing water services, if necessary, s hall be carried out by the Applicant/Property Owner, according to Public Works Services Department, Engineering Division specifications.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

18. The Property Owner /Applicant shall utilize existing sewer laterals, if possible. If any drainage fixture is lower than the elevation of the next upstream manhole cover, an approved type of backwater valve is required to be installed behind the property line.

19. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the project, the Applicant/Property Owner shall make a fair share contribution to the sewer line upsizing project along Santa Anita Avenue. This fair share payment is memorialized as Mitigation Measure UTL-1.

20. The existing palm trees on Huntington Drive are to remain and be protected.

21. The Property Owner/Applicant shall p lant 36- inch box trees in tree wells with irrigation on Santa Anita Avenue and Morlan Place. Locations of the tree wells and species of trees are to be determined by the Public Works Services Inspector.

22. The Property Owner/Applicant shall file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board for a General Construction NPDES Permit, due to the proposed project exceeding one acre of disturbed land. The NOI must include items such as the p reparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, applicable fees, and other required documentation. The City will not approve any grading plans until a Waste Discharger Identification number has been issued by the State.

23. The proposed project is subject to low impact development (LID) requirements.

The Property Owner/ Applicant shall integrate LID strategies into the site design.

These strategies include using infiltration trenches, bioretention planter boxes, roof drains connected to a landscaped area, pervious concrete/paver, etc.

24. Trash/recycling bins shall be configured to provide easy access for trash collection services. There should be 1 foot clearance around the trash bins/recycling bins and all bins/carts shall meet the specifications of the Public Works Services Department. A t a minimum, trash enclosure areas should accommodate three containers: a 3-yard bin for trash, 3-yard bin for recycling, and 69/96 gallon sized carts for organics recycling. The roof clearance for the trash enclosure must be at least 10 feet high.

25. All building areas shall be fully fire sprinklered per the City of Arcadia Fire Department Commercial Sprinkler Standard. The sprinkler systems serving commercial areas and residential areas shall be segregated. The fire sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL listed central station. Notification appliances shall be provided in all common areas. Visual appliances shall be provided in any residential units classified as being accessible.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

26. Class I standpipes shall be provided on all floors inside stairwells and shall extend to the roof. Additional standpipes may be required for the building interior.

27. Knox boxes shall be provided for all lobby areas. Any automatic gates used in parking areas shall be equipped with a knox switch.

28. Minimum 2A:10BC fire extinguishers shall be provided in all common areas. A maximum travel distance of 75 feet shall be provided to fire extinguishers.

29. A minimum of one Emergency Medical Services (EMS) elevator shall be required.

30. An Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System shall be provided.

31. The minimum required fire flow for the site shall be 1,500 gpm at 20 psi.

32. All required exit stairwells shall be designed in an approved manner to allow the segregation of the commercial floors from the residential floors.

33. Three new public fire hydrants shall be provided. One hydrant shall be provided on the west side of the street frontage on Huntington Drive. Two fire hydrants shall be provided on the street frontage of Santa Anita Avenue at approved locations.

34. The Property Owner/Applicant shall prepare a Lighting Plan that provides the type and location of proposed exterior lighting and signage, subject to the review and approval of the City’s Development Services Department. All new lighting will be shielded and down-cast, such that the light is not cast onto adjacent properties or visible from above, and all new lighting would be reviewed to ensure compliance with the standards codified in Section 9103.01 of the City of Arcadia Development Code.

35. The Project shall be conducted in compliance with all applicable South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and permitting requirements, including but not limited to:
• SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, for controlling fugitive dust and avoiding nuisance. Compliance with this rule will reduce short -term particulate pollutant emissions.
• SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states that a Project will not “discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property”.
• SCAQMD Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings, which limits the volatile organic content (VOC) of architectural coatings used for the Project.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

36. Prior to approval of grading plans, the Development Services Department shall verify that the following note is included on the contractor specifications to ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): To avoid impacts on nesting birds, vegetation on the Project site should be cleared between September 1 and January 31. If vegetation clearing occurs during the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the impact area, the vegetation clearing/construction work will be allowed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determ ines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity.

Construction activities shall be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest is abandoned.

37. As required by the City’s Comprehensive Tree Management Program, the Property Owner/Applicant shall obtain a permit from the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for the removal and planting of street trees associated with the Project.

The Property Owner/Applicant will abide by the standards set forth in the permit, as well as standards contained in the Comprehensive Tree Management Program and other applicable sections of the Arcadia Development and Municipal Codes.

38. The Property Owner/Applicant shall submit the Project’s landscape plans, which will include the proposed locations and species of replacement street trees, to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for review. Street tree species will consist of those set forth in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan.

39. If human remains are encountered during excavation activities, all work shall halt in the immediate vicinity of the discovery and the Los Angeles County Coroner shall be notified (California Public Resources Code §5097.98). The Coroner shall determine whether the remains are of forensic interest. If the Coroner determines that the remains are prehistoric, s/he will contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC shall be responsible for designating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

The MLD shall make his/her recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD’s recommendation shall be followed if feasible and may include scientific removal and non-destructive analysis of the human remains and any items associated with Native American burials (California Health and Safety Code §7050.5). If the landowner rejects the MLD’s recommendations, the landowner shall rebury the remains with appropriate dignity on the property in a location that will not be subject to further subsurface disturbance (California Public Resources Code §5097.98).

40. The Project shall be consistent with the Title 24 energy efficiency standards and the mandatory requirements of the CALGreen code. Construction activities shall comply with idling requirements and maintenance requirements for on- and off- road vehicles.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

41. Geotechnical design considerations for Project implementation are governed by the Arcadia Building Code, as set forth in Article VIII of the Arcadia Municipal Code, which incorporates by reference the California Building Code (CBC), including the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical and Existing Building Codes (CBSC 2022). Future buildings and structures shall be designed in accordance with applicable requirements of the CBC, the Arcadia Municipal Code, and any applicable building and seism ic codes in effect at the time the grading plans are approved.

42. Activities at the Project site shall comply with existing federal, State, and local regulations regarding hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and transport to prevent Project -related risks to public health and safety. All on- site generated waste that meets hazardous waste criteria shall be stored, manifested, transported, and disposed of in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 22) and in a manner to the satisfaction of the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), as applicable. Any hazardous materials removed from the Project site shall be transported only by a Licensed Hazardous Waste Hauler, who shall be in compliance with all applicable State and federal requirements, including U.S.

Department of Transportation regulations under Title 49 (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act) and Title 40, Section 263 (Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) of the Code of Federal Regulations; California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards; and Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) standards.

43. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with the Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), which will require the development and implementation of a project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).

44. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, including the most current edition of the California Fire Code and the Arcadia Municipal and Development Codes, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures; fire hydrants; fire access; water availability; and other, similar requirements. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Arcadia Development Services Department and the Arcadia Fire Department shall verify compliance with applicable codes and that appropriate fire safety measures are included in the Project design. All such codes and measures shall be implemented prior to occupancy.

45. In accordance with the City’s Ordinance 7492, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall remit the most current fire protection facilities impact fee to the City. All money collected as fees imposed shall be used against the capital and infrastructure costs required to maintain acceptable life safety and fire protection in the City. The Development Services Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

Department shall confirm compliance with this requirement prior to the issuance of a building permit.

46. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall pay new development fees to the Arcadia Unified School District (AUSD) pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. As an option to the payment of developer fees, the AUSD and the Property Owner/Applicant can enter into a facility and funding agreement, if approved by both parties. Evidence that agreements have been executed shall be submitted to the Development Services Department, or fees shall be paid with each building permit.

47. In accordance with the City’s Ordinance 2237 and Section 9105.15 of the City’s Development Code, prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall remit the most current park facilities impact fee and/or other negotiated park fees to the City. All money collected as fees imposed shall be deposited in the Park Facilities Impact Fee Program and shall be used for the acquisition, development, and improvement of public parks and recreational facilities in the City, as proposed by the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

The Development Services Department shall confirm compliance with this requirement prior to issuance of a building permit.

48. The Property Owner/Applicant shall contribute, on a cost-share basis, to the City’s traffic mitigation system for any intersections affected by the Project, as defined in the approved Traffic Impact Study (Traffic Impact Study for the Arcadia Town Center Project, Psomas, September 2024).

49. The Property Owner/Applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and restrictions set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code, including Section 7472 regarding restrictions on discharges into the sewer and Section 5130 regarding achievement of annual waste diversion rates and other applicable requirements in compliance with but not limited to Assembly Bill 939, Assembly Bill 341, and Assembly Bill 1826.

50. All City requirements regarding disabled access and facilities, occupancy limits, building safety, health code compliance, emergency equipment, environmental regulation compliance, and parking and site design shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official, City Engineer, Deputy Development Services Director, Fire Marshal, and Public Works Services Director. Any changes to the existing facility may be subject to having fully detailed plans submitted for plan check review and approval by the aforementioned City officials and employees and may subject to separate building permits.

51. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Applicant must defend, indemnify, and hold the City, any departments, agencies, divisions, boards, and/or commissions of the City, and its elected officials, officers, contractors serving as City officials, agent s, employees, and attorneys of the City (“Indemnitees”) Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

harmless from liability for damages and/or claims, actions, or proceedings for damages for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage, and with respect to all other actions and liabilities for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of the Applicant’s activities in connection with MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02, ADR 19-09, and COD 22-25 (“Project”) on the Project site, and which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of the Applicant or those of the Applicant’s contr actors, agents, tenants, employees or any other persons acting on Applicant’s behalf, which relate to the development and/or construction of the Project. This indemnity provision applies to all damages and claims, actions, or proceedings for damages, as described above, regardless of whether the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the Project.

52. In the event of any legal action challenging the validity, applicability, or interpretation of any provision of this approval, or any other supporting document relating to the Project, the City will promptly notify the Applicant of the claim, action, or proceedings and will fully cooperate in the defense of the matter. Once notified, the Applicant must indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and each of them, with respect to all liability, costs and expenses incurred by, and/or awarded against, the City or any of the Indemnitees in relation to such action.

Within 15 days’ notice from the City of any such action, the Applicant shall provide to the City a cash deposit to cover legal fees, costs, and expenses incurred by City in connection with defense of any legal action in an initial amount to be reasonably determined by the City Attorney. The City may draw funds from the deposit for such fees, costs, and expenses. Within 5 business days of each and every notice from City that the deposit has fall en below the initial amount, Applicant shall replenish the deposit each and every time in order for City’s legal team to continue working on the matter. The City shall only refund to the Developer any unexpended funds from the deposit within 30 days of: (i ) a final, non-appealable decision by a court of competent jurisdiction resolving the legal action; or (ii) full and complete settlement of legal action. The City shall have the right to select legal counsel of its choice that the Applicant reasonably appr oves. The parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action. The City will not voluntarily assist in any such third-party challenge(s) or take any position adverse to the Applicant in connection with such third-party challenge(s). In consideration for approval of the Project, this condition shall remain in effect if the entitlement(s) related to this Project is rescinded or revoked, at the request of the Applicant or not.

Mitigation Measures as Conditions of Approval
The following conditions are found in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). They are recorded here to facilitate review and implementation. More information on the timing and responsible parties for these mitigation measures is detailed in the MMRP.

53. MM CUL -1. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the Property Owner/Applicant shall submit the name and qualifications of a qualified archaeologist to the City of Arcadia Development Services Department for review Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

and approval. Once approved, the qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Project Applicant/Developer. If suspected cultural (archaeological) resources or tribal cultural resources are inadvertently unearthed during excavation activities, the contractor shall immediately cease all earth- disturbing activities within a 100- foot radius of the area of discovery. The Project contractor or Property Owner/Applicant shall contact the qualified archaeologist to request an evaluation of the significance of the find and determine an appropriate course of action. If avoidance of the resource(s) is not feasible, salvage operation requirements pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines shall be followed. After the find has been appropriately avoided or mitigated, work in the area may resume
.

54. MM NOI- 1. The Property Owner/Applicant shall require that all construction contractors restrict the operation of the following construction equipment to beyond the following distances from off -site buildings: (1) vibratory rollers – 25 feet, and (2) Caisson drilling, large bulldozers, loaded t rucks, and other large equipment (vehicle weight greater than 25,000 lbs.) – 15 feet. Any activities occurring within 5 feet of existing property line shall use non -vibration intensive methods such as use of concrete s aws, universal processors, and/or expansive agents for demolition.

55. MM TRANS- 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared by the Property Owner/Applicant for the review and approval of the City of Arcadia and any other affected jurisdictions in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Construction activities shall comply with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia. The Property Owner/Applicant shall begin coordination with the City on the Construction Management Plan as soon as practicable during the final design process and in advance of construction so that effective measures can be developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate construction impacts to parking and circulation within the City of Arcadia downtown.

At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall:
• Describe the duration and location of lane closures (if any). • Address traffic control for any partial street closures, detours, or other disruption to traffic circulation during project construction, including as - needed use of flagpersons and signage.
• Identify the routes that construction vehicles would utilize for the delivery of construction materials to access the project site. Haul routes would follow the City’s approved truck routes and avoid residential streets. • Identify the location of parking and materials storage for construction workers during all phases of construction. Parking for construction Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

workers would be provided on-site or at additional off-site locations that are not on public streets.
• Identify of emergency access points/routes.
• Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. • Require the contractor to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations.

The contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material, which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. • All hauling or transport of oversize loads would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends or Federal holidays.
• Include details on the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connectivity through the Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• Require that haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users. • Provisions for the contractor to repair existing pavement, streets, curbs, sidewalks, and/or gutters that may be altered during project construction. The repairs shall be completed in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• Require that all construction-related parking and staging of vehicles will be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and will occur either on-site or on designated off-site parcels that would not adversely affect access to or parking within the downtown.

56. MM TCR-1. A Native American Monitor shall be retained prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities:

A. The Property Owner/Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground- disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground- disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demol ition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground- disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground- disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of grounddisturbing activities, soil types, cultural -related materials , and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all grounddisturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

57. MM TCR-2. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects

(Non-Funerary/Non-Ceremonial) Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

58. MM TCR-3. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

C. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

D. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

59. MM UTIL-1. Sewer Upsizing Fair Share Payment. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit for the Project, the Property Owner/Applicant shall make a fair share contribution of 9 percent of the total Santa Anita Avenue sewer upsizing project cost to the City’s Development Services Department. This payment shall help fund replacing the existing sewer line in Santa Anita Avenue between Huntington Drive and Camino Real Avenue within 12-inch diameter pipelines. The Santa Anita Avenue sewer upsizing project shall be split into three phases and included in the City's 2024- 25, 2025-26, and 2026-27 Capital Improvement Plan budgets, respectively. The sewer work will be completed by the City's Public Works Department by approximately the end of the 2026-27 Fiscal Year. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until all phases of the Santa Anita Avenue sewer upsizing project are fully implemented. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Services Department as appropriate.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve this project, the Commission should move to adopt the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and approve Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19 -11, Tentative Tract Map No. TTM 21- 02 (83325), Architectural Design Review No. ADR 19- 09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22- 25 for the Arcadia Town Center mixed- use development, state that the proposal satisfies the requisite findings, and adopt the attached Resolution No. 2164, and the conditions of approval as presented in this staff report, or as modified by the Commission.

Denial

If the Planning Commission is to deny this project , the Commission should state the specific findings that the proposal does not satisfy based on the evidence presented with specific reasons for denial of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or the project, and move to deny Minor Use Permit No. MUP 19 -11, Tentative Tract Map No.

TTM 21- 02 (83325), Architectural Design Review No. ADR 19- 09, and Certificate of Demolition No. COD 22 -25, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the next meeting that incorporates the Commission’s recommendation and specific findings.

Arcadia Town Center
January 14, 2025

If any Planning Commissioner or other interested party has any questions or comments regarding this matter prior to the January 14, 2025 , hearing, please contact Senior Planner, Edwin Arreola, at (626) 821-4334, or by email at [email protected].

Approved:

Lisa L. Flores
Deputy Development Services Director

Attachment No. 1: Resolution No. 2164
Attachment No. 2: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information and Photos of the Project Site Attachment No. 3: Tentative Tract Map
Attachment No. 4: Architectural Plans
Attachment No. 5: Response to Comments, Comment Letters from CalTrans and Lozeau Drury LLP, and Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Technical Appendices – link to the Technical Appendices are found under the Arcadia Town Project at:
www.arcadiaca.gov/significantprojects

Attachment No. 5

Attachment No. 5
Response to comments the Appeal letter,
the Draft MMRP and Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The
appendices to the IS/MND can be found
under the Arcadia Town Center Project at
www.arcadiaca.gov/significantprojects

150 South Arroyo Parkway Suite 102, Pasadena, CA 91105 T: (626) 351-2000

MEMORANDUM

March 4, 2025

To: From:

Lisa Flores
City of Arcadia
Community Development Department

Jillian Neary
Alia Hokuki
Subject: Response to Planning Commission Appeal on the Arcadia Town Center Project Submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP for Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility

The following presents responses to comments submitted to the City of Arcadia by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER). SAFER is an organization associated with the Southern California District Council of Laborers, a chartered council of the Laborers International Union of North America (LiUNA). The SAFER comments are in the letter dated December 20, 2024, and provided as Attachment 1 to the Appeal Application dated January 24, 2025 (see Appendix A to this Memorandum). This letter is the same comment letter submitted by Lozeau Drury on behalf of SAFER during the IS/MND public review period (November 21, 2024 through December 20, 2024), for which the City provided written responses for consideration by the City of Arcadia’s Planning Commission1.

SAFER has appealed the City of Arcadia’s Planning Commission’s approval of the Arcadia Town Center Project (Project) (Resolution No. 2164. MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 [83325], ADR 19-09, COD 22-25) and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The Notice of Determination for the Project was filed at the Los Angeles County Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk on January 17, 2025; and posted at the State Clearinghouse on January 18, 2025.

The appeal letter focuses on air quality (including indoor air quality), biological resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise. The comment letter includes unsubstantiated statements regarding the adequacy of these analyses under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that the indoor air quality of the proposed building would result in a health risk. In all instances in this memorandum, “air quality” refers to outdoor air quality unless otherwise noted.

It should be noted that the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), the agency with jurisdiction over air quality and GHG emissions, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the agency with jurisdiction over biological resources, received the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) for the Project. Neither SCAQMD nor CDFW provided comments on the IS/MND, and as such did not raise questions about the methodology and assumptions used in these analyses.

The appeal letter as well as the comment letter and its Exhibits A through D (see Appendix A to this Memorandum) have been divided into sequential numbered comments and the corresponding City of Arcadia responses are provided beginning on the following page.

1 https://cms9files.revize.com/arcadia/Shape%20Arcadia/Development%20Services/current%20projects/ Arcadia%20Town%20Center/Response%20to%20Comments%20and%20Comment%20Letters.pdf

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas

SUPPORTERS ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY APPEAL LETTER (VIA LOZEAU DRURY LLP)
Response 1. The comment states the appeal letter is submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER and is acknowledged.

Response 2. This comment states the comment letter is submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER and provides a brief summary of the Project and is acknowledged.

Response 3. As addressed in Responses 12 through 39 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion there is a “fair argument that the Project may result in significant adverse impacts on biological resources, noise, air quality, and indoor air quality” and that therefore an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary to “analyze and mitigate these impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act…”.

Section 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines states, in part, that substantial evidence “means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached”. As discussed further in Responses 12 through 39, the commenter’s assertions are based on evidence that is inaccurate and/or irrelevant, which results in unreasonable inferences from the information utilized. As such, the commenter has not provided substantial evidence for the record and as such does meet the fair argument standard pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines to legally assert that the Project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts.

The commenter is referred to the entirety of the IS/MND and its appendices, which provides a full analysis of the Project consistent with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq.) The IS/MND also identifies multiple mitigation measures related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise and Vibration, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems, which are required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The IS/MND adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with Project implementation. Specifically, in accordance with Section 15063(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the environmental analysis and all conclusions presented in the IS/MND relied upon facts, expert opinion supported by facts, technical studies, and other substantial evidence to support the determination that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures, the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment.

An EIR is not required for the Project because (1) all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level and (2) the commenter does not provide any substantial evidence supporting the numerous and varied assertions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the IS/MND analysis presented in the comment letter and attached exhibits. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 4. The comment provides the names of the preparers of Exhibits A and D to the comment letter and is acknowledged.

Response 5. The comment provides a summary of the Project and is acknowledged.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Response 6. The comment presents the legal background asserted by the commenter as related to the IS/MND and comments provided thereon and is acknowledged.

Response 7. As addressed in Responses 12 through 22 below, there is no evidence to support the assertions that the IS/MND “failed to account for the diversity of species present on the Project site”, “inadequately analyzed the Project’s adverse impacts on wildlife”, and “the MND’s proposed mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce the Project’s biological impacts” and, therefore, there is a fair argument the Project may result in significant biological resources impacts. Based on the analysis conducted in the IS/MND, there would be less than significant impacts related to biological resources; and no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted, and an EIR is not necessary.

Response 8. As addressed in Responses 23 through 30 below, there is no evidence to support the assertions that the “MND’s noise analysis relies on an inadequate noise baseline”, “the Project will result in potentially significant construction noise impacts”, and ”the MND’s operational noise analysis is insufficient”, and, therefore, there is a fair argument the Project will result in significant noise and vibration impacts. Based on the analysis conducted in the IS/MND, there would be less than significant impacts related to noise and vibration with mitigation measure (MM) NOI-1. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted, and an EIR is not necessary.

Response 9. As addressed in Responses 31 through 37 below, there is no evidence to support the assertions that the “MND relied on an inadequate air quality analysis”, “the Project will have significant impacts related to air pollutant health risks” not adequately addressed in the IS/MND, the “MND inadequately evaluated…GHG impacts”, and the “MND does not include all feasible mitigation measures to address the Project’s air quality impacts”, and, therefore, there is a fair argument the Project will have significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts. Based on the analysis conducted in the IS/MND and additional modeling conducted as part of the IS/MND’s Responses to Comments document2, there would be less than significant impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions; and no mitigation measures are required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted, and an EIR is not necessary.

Response 10. As addressed in Response 38 below, there is no evidence to support the assertion that operation of the Project would expose people to a significant health risk related to indoor air quality from formaldehyde in building materials. Even if the assertions regarding the health risk of future residents and visitors to the Project had merit, this does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment and as such it is not relevant to the CEQA process. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted, and an EIR is not necessary.

Response 11. The comment reiterates there is a fair argument the Project may have significant impacts requiring an EIR to be prepared and is acknowledged.

2 Ibid.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
COMMENT LETTER EXHIBIT A (SHAWN SMALLWOOD, PhD)
The following are responses to comments provided by Shawn Smallwood, PhD, and provided as Exhibit A to the SAFER comment letter dated December 20, 2024 (Appendix A to this Memorandum).

Response 12. This comment states the letter is submitted by Shawn Smallwood, PhD and provides a brief summary of the Project and documentation of his qualifications and is acknowledged.

Response 13. This comment (including Photos 1–21 and Table 1) describes the result of Noriko Smallwood’s survey of the Project site and adjacent areas. The wildlife species observed were consistent with those observed during Psomas’ site survey and those species expected to occur on or adjacent to the Project site. The comment does not identify any specific deficiencies with the IS/MND under CEQA or the State CEQA Guidelines; however, the comment is noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review. No further response is required.

Response 14. The comment states that Ms. Smallwood’s field survey would have observed more wildlife if she had been there longer. To attempt to quantify the amount of additional wildlife the commenter thinks she would have observed if they had more individuals surveying and/or had more field time, the commenter uses a mathematical regression model as an “analytical bridge” to compensate for the lack of on-site observations by Ms. Smallwood. This model was developed by the commenter based on several years of surveys on the approximately 41,300-acre Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, located within predominantly undeveloped grasslands in central California.

The Project is an urban infill redevelopment on a site that is completely developed with existing land uses, almost devoid of pervious surfaces, with only sparse and ornamental vegetation, and adjoining two of the main thoroughfares through the City of Arcadia. Urban settings do not contain the same wildlife diversity expected to be found in native habitats because urban areas lack habitat components essential to native species survival (i.e., suitable nesting areas, water/riparian resources required by species for reproduction and foraging, plant diversity required as food sources). Applying the regression model–which is based on observations collected on thousands of acres of open space with native vegetation communities required to support native wildlife species–to calculate species diversity on the 2.27-acre, developed Project site located in a densely urbanized area without factoring in the vast difference in settings between to two areas is misguided and inaccurate. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 15. The commenter states that the wildlife that uses the atmosphere or airspace (termed “aerosphere” by the commenter) above the site that would be “appropriated” by the proposed building needed to be characterized in the IS/MND as part of the existing environmental setting to analyze the risk to birds from window collisions. The commenter further states that the environmental setting was not informed by field surveys and the IS/MND “fails to report the importance of the site’s trees to birds”.

Any discussion of atmosphere pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines refers to the analysis of criteria air pollutants and GHG emissions (GHGs) generated by a Project and their

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
effects on humans. The analysis of mortality of vertebrate wildlife due to bird-window collisions is not specified nor required by CEQA or the California Fish and Game Code to be considered in the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Similarly, wildlife movement through airspace is irrelevant to the analysis of biological resources pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Code.

Based on the condition and setting of the Project site, a consulting biologist practiced in CEQA would generally find it self-evident that the site would not support bountiful wildlife and even more unlikely to support special status species. The site is dominated by asphalt, concrete, glass, brick, metal gates, trimmed ornamental hedges and widely spaced street trees. These are not the resources that constitute valuable wildlife habitat within the region, and these resources do not support populations of special status species. There is only sparse and ornamental vegetation that provides very limited resources to wildlife species, the vast majority of which are tolerant of urban settings. The presence of these common, urban-tolerant wildlife species are well documented in the Arcadia General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2009081034).

Nevertheless, as part of IS/MND preparation, a Psomas biologist and certified arborist surveyed the site to document both the existing conditions and all trees on and adjacent to the property.

Additionally, contrary to commenter’s assertion in Comment 16, Psomas conducted a desktop review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), as discussed further below. No special status plant or wildlife species were observed, only the typical urban-adapted species expected on such a site. No critical habitat or records of candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or wildlife species were identified on the site or its vicinity (see page 3-30 of the IS/MND).

While sparse and non-native, the 26 existing trees are the sole existing feature of the site that may support wildlife; as such, the analysis focuses on the impacts to, and resulting from, removal of these trees and implementation of the Project and related landscaping. This includes highlighting, through regulatory requirements (RRs), the need for pre-construction bird surveys and the applicable City of Arcadia Municipal Code standards for tree management. As discussed on page 3-31 of the IS/MND, the Project would include a total of 46 new trees. This represents 20 more trees, or an increase of approximately 77 percent, compared to the existing condition.

While commenter asserts potential impacts to birds as a whole and other, unnamed wildlife species, the analysis in the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, which asks the following regarding vegetation, habitat, and wildlife present on a site:
1) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
2) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?3
As discussed above and in the IS/MND, the answer to both these checklist questions is no.

Moreover, the loss of a fraction of an acre of ornamental vegetation spread over 2.27 acres for the urban tolerant species present in the area is insignificant relative to the amount of habitat available to these species across the region, in addition to the abundant open space immediately across Huntington Drive at the 185-acre Arcadia County Park. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 16. As discussed in Response 15, Psomas conducted a desktop review of the USFWS’ Environmental Conservation Online System, Critical Habitat Portal; and CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database in 2019, when preparation of the IS/MND began.4,5 The conditions on the site and surrounding area have not materially changed in the years since these records were reviewed. No critical habitat or records of candidate, sensitive, or special status plant or wildlife species were identified on the site or its vicinity (see page 3-30 of the IS/MND).

It is noted that the lengthy species list presented in Table 2 of commenter’s letter, representing commenter’s “cursory desktop review for the potential of special-status species of wildlife to occur at the site”, is derived from eBird and iNaturalist. These are both crowdsourced databases that are open to the public and the sightings recorded on these apps are not vetted or otherwise maintained in the same manner as official USFWS and CDFW databases, such as those reviewed as part of IS/MND preparation.

Regarding the assertions regarding the number of migratory birds that may pass through the “aerosphere” in the Los Angeles area, please refer to Response 15. As noted, the analysis of mortality of vertebrate wildlife due to bird-window collisions is not specified nor required by CEQA or the California Fish and Game Code to be considered in the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Similarly, wildlife movement through airspace is irrelevant to the analysis of biological resources pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines or the California Fish and Game Code.

Commenter’s assertion that Ms. Smallwood’s brief survey and the desktop review (i.e., Table 2 of commenter’s letter) constitute evidence of a fair argument requiring EIR preparation to “accurately characterize the wildlife community of the project site” is unsubstantiated and without merit. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

3 From Appendix G, Environmental Che cklist, of the State CEQA Guidelines 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019 (May 31). California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for Mt. Wilson USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFW, Natural Heritage Division.
5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Co nservation Online System (ECOS). 2019 (May 31, access date). Critical Habitat Portal. Washington, DC: USFWS.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Response 17. The commenter states “…the IS/MND includes no analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region”. Page 3-31 of the IS/MND includes the following:
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. Due to the presence of ornamental trees on site, there is the potential for nesting birds subject to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code. The MBTA prohibits activities that result in the direct take (defined as killing or possession) of birds covered by the MBTA. Through compliance with the provisions of the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, including implementation of RR BIO-1, there would be a less than significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Regarding the assertion that “inserting a building into the airspace that has been used by birds” and as such would “obviously” interfere with wildlife movement in the region, as discussed previously (see Responses 15 and 17) the analysis of impacts to wildlife movement through airspace due to the introduction of man-made features is not specified nor required by CEQA or the California Fish and Game Code to be considered in the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 18. Regarding the information and assertions regarding bird-window collision fatalities with Project implementation, please refer to Response 15. As noted, the analysis of mortality of vertebrate wildlife due to bird-window collisions is not specified nor required by CEQA or the California Fish and Game Code to be considered in the Biological Resources section of Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, as discussed on pages 2-3 and 3-67 of the IS/MND, the proposed maximum height of 60 feet (excluding mechanical equipment) is consistent with the allowable development standards for the Downtown Mixed Use zone, which is the current zoning for all parcels within the site. Additionally, as discussed on page 2-2 of the IS/MND, the proposed 5-story building’s height is well within the range of building heights in the immediate vicinity. Specifically, “Most of the structures that are adjacent to the Project site are one to two stories in height with heights ranging from 14 feet to 37 feet, with some taller structures interspersed. Within the immediate viewshed of the Project site, there is a 5-story storage building on Huntington Drive approximately 120 feet west of the Project site at 35 West Huntington Drive, and an 8-story office building on Santa Anita Avenue approximately 200 feet northeast of the site at 150 North Santa Anita Avenue. The former Van de Kamp’s Bakery building, which is now a Denny’s restaurant, is located east of the Project site at the northeast corner of Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue. The Denny’s restaurant exhibits variable heights with a single-story main building topped by a 40-foot-tall stylized, operational, windmill”. Notably, the facade treatment and mechanical equipment screen on the Mercedes Benz dealership extends up to a height of 52 feet.

The commenter explains their rationale for calculating that they believe the Project would result in approximately 217 annual bird deaths because of collisions with the proposed building. Data presented to support this claim was from a variety of geographies, including the states of

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Washington, Illinois, New York, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, and Canada and Mexico, just to name a few. It is unclear from the comment how the listed case studies had common resources to the Project site. For instance, were all sites located in urban cities, were all sites also essentially devoid of natural resources? It is inappropriate to conduct a scientific and/or statistical analysis when foundational parameters are not consistent. While it is acknowledged that glass on the facades of all building types, from small single-family homes to high-rise office towers, can result in bird collisions and related injury or fatality, currently this is not considered a form of incidental take of protected, migratory, non-game bird species pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California Migratory Bird Protection Act, or California Fish and Game Code.

CEQA documentation is based on the laws and regulations in effect at the time the document is prepared. Therefore, as discussed previously, bird-window collisions are not germane to the biological resources analysis of the IS/MND under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and California Fish and Game. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 19. The commenter implies that the Photos 22-25 are from roads that are to be used by vehicular traffic associated with the Project. Photo 22 is of a white-tailed antelope squirrel in the Coachella Valley in 2022. Photo 23 is of a coyote and was taken in February 2023, well before Ms. Smallwood’s site visit was on December 6, 2024. Photos 24 and 25 are of a raccoon killed in Solano County and mourning dove killed on a “California road”, respectively. The commenter continues to state that “The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California”. A study from over 300 miles from the Project site in California’s central valley is considered irrelevant because, again, it is a fundamentally different setting. While the commenter did concede an assumption about the reduced number of wild animals “encountered by project-generated traffic” in the City of Arcadia compared to the study’s area, there is no basis given for the use or accuracy of this assumption.

The commentator then describes the math he applied to quantify the rate of fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from the above-referenced studies “that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates”. Notably, fatalities as a function of traffic were not part of the referenced study. Furthermore, there are many possible factors that could affect the rate of wildlife-vehicle collisions besides traffic levels, such as topography proximate to the road, types and extents of habitat in the immediate area, and types and population densities of wildlife in the immediate area. To correlate a rate of fatalities based solely on VMT, especially when determined as an exercise in arithmetic outside of the original study, with no consideration of other relevant factors or a rigorous statistical assessment of this methodology is misguided.

Applying this faulty correlation to support assertions of significant environmental impacts on other project sites is inappropriate.

The commenter goes on to apply this correlation to the Project to predict 166 annual “non- volant” wildlife fatalities from vehicle collisions related to Project-generated traffic. As part of this, commenter states “The IS/MND predicts 1,302,015 annual VMT”, with the implication this figure was quoted from the IS/MND. In fact, there is not a single place in the IS/MND or the Traffic Impact Study, provided as IS/MND Appendix H, that annual VMT for the Project is discussed let alone “predicted”. Furthermore, VMT per capita or per employee, rather than annual or total VMT, is the applicable metric for transportation analyses conducted under CEQA

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
and in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 to determine whether a project aligns or conflicts with lead agency, regional, and State climate goals and thresholds.6 VMT figures specific to the Project are presented in Appendix D, SGVCOG VMT Screening Tool Report”, of the Traffic Impact Study (Appendix H to the IS/MND). This provides the results of the Project’s screening-level VMT evaluation pursuant to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) tool, consistent with the City of Arcadia Transportation Study Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled and Level of Service Assessment that was adopted pursuant to SB 743. Based on Project parameters input to the SGVCOG screening tool, VMT rates per capita and per employee of the Project are generated.

However, the figure of 1,302,015 annual VMT is shown in one location in the IS/MND materials circulated for public review. This figure is shown in Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations, on page 23 of the compiled .PDF of the Appendices to the IS/MND.
7 Specifically, as shown in the image on the following page, this data is part of the activity data for operational mobile sources used in modeling air emissions for the existing conditions on the site. Moreover, the VMT calculated in this context is a CalEEMod default based on the user inputs of land use type and total trips. The daily and annual VMT calculated within CalEEMod is not otherwise used as the basis for CEQA analyses by practitioners for this reason.

6 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) (now Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation). 2018, December. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Sacramento, CA: OPR. https://lci.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. 7 https://www.arcadiaca.gov/Shape%20Arcadia/De velopment%20Services/current%20projects/Arcadia %20Town%20Center/Arcadia_Town_Center_Project_Appendices.pdf.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas

For all the reasons identified above, commenter’s methodology to jump from a single study in a vastly different setting over 300 miles away to a quantification of annual vehicle-related wildlife fatalities for the Project is flawed and misguided.

Commenter’s assertion that the results of this assessment constitute evidence of a fair argument requiring EIR preparation to “appropriately analyze the impact of wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic” is unsubstantiated and without merit.

Moreover, as discussed previously, wildlife-vehicle collisions are not germane to the biological resources analysis of the IS/MND under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and California Fish and Game. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 20. Section 3.4, Biological Resources, of the IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential biological resources impacts from construction and operation of the Project based on established best practices for such analyses. The IS/MND concludes there would be less than significant impacts related to biological resources and no mitigation is required (see pages 3-28 through 3-31 of the IS/MND).

Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the IS/MND addresses cumulative impacts under Threshold 3.21(b) and concludes there would be less than significant cumulative impacts with mitigation incorporated, where applicable, and no further mitigation is required (see page 3-114 of the IS/MND). Mitigation measures were identified for significant impacts involving cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials (emergency access during construction),

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
noise (vibration during construction), transportation (construction traffic), tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems (wastewater conveyance).

As discussed in Responses 7 through 19, commenter’s assertions of significant, new impacts to wildlife are wholly unsubstantiated; accordingly, the assertion of significant cumulative impacts to wildlife are similarly erroneous. As concluded in the IS/MND there would be no significant impacts to biological resources (including but not limited to wildlife) and as such no mitigation or other “specific requirements” are required. No revisions to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 21. The comment states the IS/MND’s mitigation measures are insufficient to reduce significant biological resources impacts, specifically citing “Mitigation Measure RR BIO-3” and characterizing this as the deferred development of landscape plans. In no location in the IS/MND are regulatory requirements or RRs written as or referred to as “Mitigation Measure RR” nor in any way could it be implied these are mitigation measures. As stated repeatedly in the IS/MND, there would be no significant impacts to biological resources and no mitigation measures are required. The abbreviation “RR” stands for regulatory requirements, which is both defined on page 1-1 of the IS/MND, in the repeated header row of Table 1 beginning on page 1-2 and is the text of the sub-header (i.e., “Regulatory Requirements”) immediately preceding the list of applicable RRs in every topical analysis section of the IS/MND. As stated on page 1-1, “RRs are based on local, State, and/or federal regulations or laws that are required independent of CEQA review [emphasis added] yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts”. Because the referenced requirement of the Project is not a mitigation measure, the remainder of the comment regarding the sufficiency of said requirement is immaterial. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 22. No significant impacts to biological resources were identified; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. These recommendations have been noted for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-makers. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

COMMENT LETTER EXHIBIT B (WILSON IHRIG)
The following are responses to comments provided by Wilson Ihrig and provided as Exhibit B to the SAFER comment letter dated December 20, 2024 (Appendix A to this Memorandum) Response 23. The comment presents a brief summary of the Project, introduces the content of the letter, describes commenter’s credentials, and is acknowledged.

Response 24. The comment presents information on the adverse effects of noise and is acknowledged.

Response 25. The purpose of conducting the short-term noise measurements at the Project boundaries was to establish the existing daytime ambient noise levels at land uses immediately adjacent to the Project site. Daytime noise levels were measured to quantify existing baseline noise levels during times representative of the hours when Project construction would occur.

Because the main existing noise sources in the vicinity of both the Project site and noise- sensitive land uses are traffic movements on Santa Anita Avenue, Huntington Drive, and Santa Clara Street, we expect that daytime noise levels at locations immediately adjacent to these roadways would stay fairly consistent throughout a typical day. Nighttime noise measurements were not deemed necessary as Project construction would be confined to daytime hours.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Two of the noise measurement locations, specifically the east and south locations, are exposed to the same traffic noise levels along Santa Anita Road and Huntington Drive as the nearest portions of Arcadia County Park and the nearest residential use on Santa Anita Avenue (located at 16 South Santa Anita Avenue). Additionally, since traffic volumes on Santa Clara Street are lower than those on other major roadways in the Project area, we expect that the residential locations along the west side of Santa Clara Street experience lower noise levels than the other nearby noise-sensitive land uses. Nonetheless, private outdoor areas of those residences are directly exposed to adjacent traffic noise from Santa Clara Street. In addition, these residences would all be shielded from Project construction noise by intervening buildings, including the Mercedes Benz of Arcadia dealership and the Arcadia Elks Lodge building.

With regard to ambient 24-hour noise measurements related to operational noise, since the primary operational noise effects from the Project are expected to be from traffic generation, we maintain that 24-hour noise measurements would not be necessary because Project operational noise impacts are evaluated in terms of comparisons of Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNELs) between existing, future without Project, and future with Project. Obtaining 24-hour noise measurement data would not have a bearing on the results of the IS/MND noise analysis.

No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 26. As outlined in Section 3.13, Noise, of the IS/MND, quantification of construction noise levels in terms of the hourly average noise level (Leq) is done based on the assumption that sources of construction noise would, on average, be operating at the center of the Project site. Maximum construction noise level (Lmax) is determined based on placement of construction activities at the nearest distances to the analyzed receptor locations. Construction noise level calculations in the commenter’s letter (Table 1 Estimated Construction Noise Levels) assume the nearest distances from the Project site to each of the analyzed receptor locations, therefore, resulting in Lmax values (not Leq). To determine the Leq at the nearest residential receptors on Santa Anita Avenue and west of Santa Clara Street, respective distances of 525 feet and 640 feet should be applied. Based on the distance to the center of the Project site, the calculated noise levels due to Project construction at the nearest Santa Anita Avenue residence would be 55 dBA to 64 dBA Leq. At the nearest residences west of Santa Clara Street, the calculated construction noise levels would range between 43 dBA and 51 dBA Leq, when a minimum noise attenuation of 10 dB due to shielding from the intervening buildings between the Project site and these residences is considered. As discussed further in Response 27 below, the combined existing and construction noise levels during the loudest construction phase would result in an estimated 3 dB to 4 dB increase above existing noise levels at the nearest residences on Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue, respectively. It is commonly known that a 5 dB increase in sound levels is generally a clearly perceptible change. Therefore, in the absence of local criteria pertaining to construction noise, it is determined that a 10 dB change in noise levels may constitute a significant impact and a 5 dB change may be used as a threshold of activity interference at noise-sensitive locations. There would not be significant construction noise impacts related to generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 27. As pointed out by the commenter, a 10 dB increase in sound levels is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness. It is also commonly known that a 5 dB increase in sound levels is generally a clearly perceptible change. Therefore, in the absence of local criteria pertaining to construction noise, it is determined that a 10 dB change in noise

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
levels may constitute a significant impact and a 5 dB change may be used as a threshold of activity interference at noise-sensitive locations.

As indicated in Response 25, the existing measured daytime Leq at the measurement location near the east Project boundary could also be used as representative of the existing daytime noise level at the nearest Santa Anita Avenue residence given their similar distances to the roadway. Therefore, the existing Leq at this residential location is approximately 65 dBA. The highest construction Leq of 64 dBA combined with the presumed existing noise level of 65 dBA Leq would result in an overall noise level of 68 dBA Leq during the loudest construction phase, which exceeds the existing noise level by approximately 3 dB. Therefore, the estimated 3 dB increase in noise levels at the Santa Anita Avenue residence due to Project construction noise would not be considered significant, and no mitigation is required.

At the nearest residential locations west of the Project site, existing daytime noise levels in terms of the L
eq are currently in the range of 55 to 60 dBA (or higher) given their proximity to traffic on Santa Clara Street. Assuming the lower level of the existing noise level range, the highest construction Leq of 51 dBA (see Response 26) combined with the presumed existing noise level of 55 dBA Leq would result in an overall noise level of 56 dBA Leq during the loudest construction phase. This would be an increase of only 1 dB over existing ambient noise levels.

Even conservatively assuming an existing 50 dBA Leq for these areas, which is typical of urban areas located far from traffic noise sources, the combined existing and construction noise levels would be 54 dBA Leq, which would be an increase of 4 dB above existing sound levels.

Therefore, construction noise impacts at the nearest residential neighborhood west of the Project site would also be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

At the exterior areas of the Arcadia Elks Lodge located immediately west of the Project site, Project construction would result in substantial increases in daytime noise levels (as disclosed in the IS/MND). However, this facility is an event and entertainment venue that does not include any outdoor activity areas. Additionally, this facility typically operates after 5:00 PM on weekdays, is closed on Saturdays, and operates all day on Sundays. The Project is expected to have construction activities Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, as discussed on page 2-11 of the IS/MND. Therefore, Project construction noise is not expected to substantially interfere with the facility’s operations and there would be a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

The commenter also implies that the City noise criteria listed in Table 22 on page 3-75 of the IS/MND should be applied to construction noise at the Arcadia County Park located south of the Project site across Huntington Drive. The criteria in the aforementioned table, which is from the City’s Noise Element of the General Plan, pertain to land use siting guidelines and is applicable to long-term noise environments. Estimated construction Leq at locations within the Arcadia County Park closest to the Project site range between 59 dBA and 68 dBA (see Table 25 on page 3-78 of the IS/MND). Assuming an existing daytime noise level similar to that measured at the south Project site boundary, as traffic on Huntington Drive is also the primary noise source in the northern portion of the park, the existing typical daytime L eq at the north edge of the park
is 66 dBA. Therefore, the loudest construction phase would result in an overall (i.e., combined plus existing) noise level of 70 dBA Leq, which would be an increase of 4 dB over the existing noise level. Therefore, Project construction noise impacts at the Arcadia County Park would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
In addition to the above, operational noise impacts pertaining to Project-related traffic noise have been evaluated as shown in Table 26 on page 3-80 of the IS/MND. The data in that table show that future overall traffic noise levels at the Arcadia County Park would increase over existing noise levels by only 0.4 dB, which would not be a detectable difference. As stated in the IS/MND (page 3-79), there would a less than significant impact on traffic noise levels for all analyzed roadway segments proximate to the site, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 28. As demonstrated by the quantitative evaluations provided in Response 27, including noise level changes over ambient levels at sensitive receptor locations, Project construction would result in less than significant noise impacts, and mitigation is not required.

No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 29. On page 3-79 of the IS/MND, in the discussion under the subtitle “Noise Generated by On-Site Sources”, the IS/MND points out that “…Noise generated by HVAC equipment is regulated by the Section 4610.3(c), which requires that noise exposure at offsite residential uses not exceed 55 dBA.” This requirement of the City of Arcadia Municipal Code, which would eventually be a condition of approval for the Project, ensures that any noise generated by stationary equipment, including HVAC units and ventilation systems, are kept below the applicable City criteria for residential uses of 55 dBA daytime and 50 dBA nighttime.

Under CEQA, imposing such specifications based on local, State, and/or federal regulations or laws that are required independent of CEQA review yet also serve to offset or prevent certain impacts represent substantial evidence. As discussed in the IS/MND, there would be less than significant noise impacts from on-site sources during Project operation, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 30. Commenter concludes the letter with a summary of the issues identified in their review. As shown above in Responses 25 through 29, it can be demonstrated that the IS/MND conclusions pertaining to noise and vibration impacts and associated mitigation are valid. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

COMMENT LETTER EXHIBIT C (SWAPE)
The following are responses to comments provided by Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) and provided as Exhibit C to the SAFER comment letter dated December 20, 2024 (Appendix A to this Memorandum).

Response 31. The comment presents a brief summary of the Project and commenter’s conclusions and is acknowledged.

Response 32. Commenter states that “SWAPE found that the MND and its air quality technical reports in Appendix A [of the IS/MND] failed to provide complete CalEEMod output files. Its files included land use inputs but omitted all other qualitative [sic] outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions, and they also omitted details on changes to the model’s default values.

The commenter is correct that CalEEMod provides default model inputs that are used across the industry and that it could be changed if more accurate or project-specific information is available. The default model inputs were developed based on a set of information that may or

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
may not be representative of any given project. As such, the SCAQMD allows users to modify these computer model inputs if there is better available data that is more representative of any given project. Accordingly, the air quality and GHG emissions modeling prepared for the Project and presented in the IS/MND were based on detailed, Project-specific information derived through a specialized data needs form and extensive coordination with the Applicant.

CalEEMod inputs were changed where appropriate and warranted, as is typical to ensure an accurate result and is industry standard practice.

Upon review of the IS/MND Appendix A files, pursuant to this comment, Psomas discovered that there were some sections of the .PDF output by CalEEMod that did not populate with the modeled data used in the IS/MND for the proposed conditions; however, all data was populated in the output files for the existing conditions. Other than a software glitch, Psomas cannot define why these values did not populate in the output file and it had never been observed prior to or since this event. Specifically, the following sections of the CalEEMod .PDF output for the proposed conditions were not populated:
x Section 2-Emissions Summary
x Section 3-Construction Emissions Details
x Section 4-Operations Emissions Details
x Section 5-Activity Data
x Section 8-User Changes to Default Data
Nevertheless, all relevant inputs and all quantitative outputs were provided in the body of the IS/MND. Specifically, the quantitative “outputs regarding the Project’s construction and operational emissions” (e.g., Sections 2 through 4) were provided in Table 8, Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Construction Emissions, on page 3-23 of the IS/MND; Table 9, Existing Daily Operational Emissions, on page 3-24; Table 10, Peak Daily Net Operational Emissions, on page 3-25; Table 13, Energy Use During Construction, on page 3-38; Table 14, Energy Use During Operations, on page 3-38; Table 15, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Construction, on page 3-49; Table 16, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Use, on page 3-50; Table 17, Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Project Operation, on page 3-50; and Table 18, Estimated Total Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions, on page 3-51. Project-specific inputs, including gross and net values where applicable, are provided throughout Section 2.0, Environmental Setting and Project Description, and in the text of Section 3.3, Air Quality; Section 3.6, Energy; Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems, among others.

Commenter states “without access to this data, SWAPE was unable to verify the potential significance and accuracy of the MND air quality modeling”. “SWAPE concluded that “[a]n EIR should be prepared to disclose the Project’s complete CalEEMod output files and adhere to CEQA’s formal guidelines”. The implication that, absent the commenter’s verification, the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses are necessarily inaccurate is without merit implicitly as well as unsubstantiated, as discussed further below. The sole reason preparation of an EIR is required under CEQA is when a project may have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be feasibly mitigated to below a level of significance. Ergo, disclosure of the “complete CalEEMod output files” is irrelevant to the determination of appropriate CEQA documentation. Additionally, provision of the CalEEMod outputs is not required under CEQA or

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
the State CEQA Guidelines–it is assumed this is what is meant by “CEQA’s formal guidelines”–it is simply the industry standard practice.

As noted, IS/MND Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations, dated November 2024 contained the output files for (1) the existing land uses and operations on the site, and (2) the Project’s construction and operational air quality and GHG emissions. The output file for the proposed conditions was downloaded from CalEEMod on August 4, 2023. The corresponding .JSON8 output file that was created in August 2023; and used to quantify the emissions presented in the IS/MND; was uploaded into CalEEMod on January 6, 2025, to generate the resulting .PDF output files. This .PDF has been included as Appendix B of this Memorandum.

It is noted that the Project’s emissions were originally quantified with CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.13 and the current software is CalEEMod Version 2022.1.1.29; as such, several updates to CalEEMod have been made since preparation of the air quality and GHG emissions analysis. Therefore, the resulting output values include a small number of changes to the values originally presented in the IS/MND; however, the differences are nominal in magnitude and do not represent a new or more significant impact related to air quality or GHG emissions than disclosed in the IS/MND. Additionally, the changes in values are solely the result of periodic updates to the software and are not related to the accuracy of the analysis or veracity of the resulting conclusions in the IS/MND. Presented beginning on the next page are side-by-side comparisons of the values presented in several tables presented in the air quality and GHG emissions sections of the IS/MND and the values generated in the current CalEEMod run presented in Appendix B. Green numerals represent decreased values and red numerals represent increased values.

As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 8, the mass (regional) construction emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) are slightly lower, with values ranging from one to five pounds per days (lbs/day) less emissions. All other values are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all maximum daily construction emissions would be well below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants.

As shown in the comparison of IS/MND Table 10, the peak daily net operational emissions are identical. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, all net daily operational emissions would be well below the SCAQMD significance thresholds for all criteria air pollutants.

As shown in the comparisons of IS/MND Tables 15, 17, and 18, the construction GHG emissions are slightly higher for construction year 2024 and slightly lower for years 2025 and 2026. On balance, the total construction GHG emissions are 36 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MTCO2e/yr) higher. When amortized, consistent with SCAQMD recommendations, the annual construction GHG emissions are 2 MTCO2e/yr higher. The total and net operational GHG emissions are identical. Therefore, as shown in the comparison of Table 18, the net total annual GHG emissions (i.e., amortized annual construction emissions plus net annual operational emissions) are 2 MTCO
2e/yr, or approximately 0.1 percent, higher
than presented in the IS/MND. Consistent with the conclusions in the IS/MND, this value would

8 CalEEMod files are output in both .PDF and .JSON (Ja vaScript Object Notation) formats; the .JSON file is what is used during preparation of technical analyses of air quality and GHG emissions, as well as energy.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
remain below the draft SCAQMD Tier 3 screening threshold (e.g., 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all land use types).

IS/MND TABLE 8

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Yeara
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 3 27 23 <1 5 2
2025 2 13 22 <1 3 1
2026 23 20 35 <1 3 1
Maximum 23 27 36 <1 5 2
SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable.

Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.

ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Yeara
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
2024 2 22 23 <1 5 2
2025 2 13 22 <1 2 1
2026 22 19 33 <1 3 1
Maximum 22 22 33 <1 5 2
SCAQMD Thresholds (Table 7) 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds SCAQMD Thresholds? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compound; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District. a When this analysis was conducted, construction of the Project was anticipated to begin in 2024. As vehicle emissions generally improve over time, this analysis remains applicable.

Source: SCAQMD 2019 (thresholds); see Appendix A for CalEEMod model outputs.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
IS/MND TABLE 10

PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2
Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3
Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1
Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No
lbs/day: pounds per day; VOC: volatile organic compounds; NOx: nitrogen oxides; CO: carbon monoxide; SOx: sulfur oxides; PM10: respirable particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5: fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD: South Coast Air Quality Management District.
* Some totals do not add due to rounding.

Source: CalEEMod model data sheets are included in Appendix A.

PEAK DAILY NET OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Mobile sources 5 4 43 <1 9 2
Area sources 4 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
Energy sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1
Total Operational Emissions* 9 5 44 <1 10 3
Less: Existing Emissions (Table 9) 3 1 16 <1 1 <1
Net Increase in Emissions 6 4 28 <1 9 3
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds (Table 7) 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
IS/MND TABLE 15

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FROM CONSTRUCTION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 631
2025 642
2026 301
Total 1,574
Annual GHG Emissions* 52
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
* Combined total amortized over 30 years
Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

FROM CONSTRUCTION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Year
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2024 705
2025 619
2026 286
Total 1,610
Annual GHG Emissions* 54
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
* Combined total amortized over 30 years
Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
IS/MND TABLE 17

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr.)
Mobile 1,519
Energy 528
Water 51
Waste 63
Refrigerants 2
Stationary 18
Total 2,181
MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT OPERATION
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/yr.)
Mobile 1,519
Energy 528
Water 51
Waste 63
Refrigerants 2
Stationary 18
Total 2,181
MTCO2e/yr.: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Notes:
x Totals may not add due to rounding
x Detailed calculations in Appendix A.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
IS/MND TABLE 18

ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.13)

Source
Emissions
MTCO2e/yr
Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 52
Operations (from Table 17) 2,181
Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504
Total 1,729
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

ESTIMATED TOTAL ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
(CALEEMOD VERSION 2022.1.1.29)

Source
Emissions
MTCO2e/yr
Construction (amortized) (from Table 15) 54
Operations (from Table 17) 2,181
Net Reduction: Existing Emissions (from Table 16) -504
Total 1,731
MTCO2e/yr: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Response 32 continued. Similar to the remarks provided above on the air quality analysis, regarding the GHG analysis the commenter states that because the “CalEEMod output files did not provide the emission estimates or any relevant inputs aside from land uses”, commenter is “unable to verify the legitimacy of the GHG emissions estimates” and, as a result, the GHG emissions estimates “could be under estimated”. Commenter states that they cannot ensure the Project’s GHG emissions are accurately calculated and as such the IS/MND’s analysis should not be relied upon. However, as demonstrated, all assertions made by SWAPE regarding the adjustments made to the default CalEEMod inputs are unsupported. Accordingly, the commenter’s assertion that the IS/MND’s GHG emissions analysis and conclusions cannot be relied upon without their full review is also incorrect and unsupported.

As established above, the IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential for criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions from the Project’s construction and operation based on established best practices for such analyses. There would be less than significant air quality and GHG emissions impacts, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 33. Commenter states the Project violates CEQA by not connecting the construction- related emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) to potential health risks to nearby sensitive receptors through preparation of a health risk “analysis” [sic]. While the SWAPE analysis is inaccurate and unsubstantiated, as demonstrated below, a detailed construction health risk assessment (HRA) has been prepared and is presented in Appendix C to this Memorandum.

The construction HRA prepared by Urban Crossroads determined that, based on appropriate assumptions, emissions resulting from the construction of the Project would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD cancer risk threshold of 10 in one million. The construction HRA prepared for the Project is discussed further below. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion of the IS/MND under Threshold 3.3(c) (page 3-27), construction emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. There would be less than significant impacts, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 34. Commenter describes preparation of a construction HRA using their own CalEEMod results, which are incorrect and unsupported. It should also be noted that the health risk screening analysis performed by SWAPE is flawed for many reasons that result in an overstatement of the health risks from construction of the Project.

First, the use of the AERSCREEN model is overly conservative, as the model does not calculate annual average emission factors. Further, the screening analysis performed relies on outdated guidance from 1992 that estimates the annualized average concentration of an air pollutant by multiplying the maximum single-hour concentration by 10 percent. This methodology significantly overestimates the annualized DPM concentration, as individual construction equipment typically operates and is active for 8 hours per day. As indicated in the “Exposure Assumptions for Residential Individual Cancer Risk” table in Comment 34, the SWAPE analysis assumed construction activities would occur for 350 days per year and the exposure time is 24 hours, both of which are patently unreasonable. However, in SWAPE’s health risk calculations (Attachment C to their letter), the annual breakdown assumes 365 construction days for 2026 and 2027 and 180 days (through the end of June) for 2028, representing a total of 30 months. In that same table, the totals indicate 730 construction days (365 times 2) beginning on January 1, 2026 and ending on January 1, 2028, representing a total of 24 months. The 730-days construction schedule is also cited in Comment 35.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Based on coordination between Psomas and the Applicant, the Project is expected to have construction activities Monday through Friday during an 8-hour period within the City’s allowable hours of construction of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM and be completed in a single phase requiring approximately 29 months (page 2-11 of the IS/MND). The Project would result in approximately 627 total working days of construction activity, which could have been readily calculated by multiplying 5 by the number of months or weeks indicated in Table 4, Estimated Project Construction Schedule, on page 2-12 of the IS/MND. Regarding annual construction days, assuming 5 days/week for 52 weeks, there would be 260 construction days per year. This figure also assumes no holidays, weather days, or other events that temporarily delay construction. A total of 350 construction days is more than 30 percent greater than 260 days.

Additionally, the SWAPE analysis significantly overestimates DPM emissions that would result from Project construction activities. Based on the CalEEMod outputs and DPM emission calculations provided, the SWAPE analysis evaluated total exhaust PM10 emissions, which includes emissions that would occur off-site because of workers commuting to and from the site as well as vendor trips. CalEEMod assumes that these trips may occur up to 20 miles from the Project site. Further, these on-road emissions include exhaust PM10 emissions from gasoline- powered worker commuting vehicles, which make up the majority of worker commuting vehicles and do not emit DPM. Because DPM concentrations dissipate rapidly with distance from the source, a valid construction HRA typically only considers DPM emissions that occur at the Project site and the immediate vicinity, as this is where the emissions are the most concentrated and the highest pollutant concentrations (and thus the highest risk) would occur. By including PM10 emissions that would occur up to 20 miles from the Project site, as well as PM10 emissions from gasoline-powered passenger vehicles that do not emit DPM, the SWAPE analysis significantly overestimates the DPM concentrations and therefore calculated cancer risk at nearby receptors. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 35. As discussed in Responses 33 and 34, the SWAPE analysis utilized a highly conservative screening approach, made several flawed assumptions regarding exposure times/durations, and overestimated DPM emissions. As demonstrated in the construction HRA prepared for the Project, the expected cancer risk at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor is 3.57 in 1 million, which would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in 1 million. SWAPE’s analysis calculated the cancer risk at 80.4 in 1 million, or more than 22 times greater. This demonstrates the flaws and inaccuracies in the SWAPE health risk analysis.

Further, non-cancer health risks were estimated at less than 0.01, which would not exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 1.0. As such, health risks associated with DPM emissions generated as part of Project construction activities would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD significance thresholds, and the Project would result in a less than significant impact. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 36. Refer to Response 32. As demonstrated, all assertions made by SWAPE regarding the adjustments made to the default CalEEMod inputs are unsupported. Accordingly, the commenter’s assertion that the IS/MND’s GHG emissions analysis and conclusions cannot be relied upon without their full review is also incorrect and unsupported. As established above, the IS/MND thoroughly reviewed and discussed the potential for GHG emissions from the Project’s construction and operation based on established best practices for such analyses.

There would be less than significant GHG emissions impacts, and no mitigation is required. No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Response 37. As demonstrated in Responses 32 through 36, there is no evidence to support any of commenter’s assertions regarding the IS/MND’s air quality and GHG emissions analyses as the evidence provided is unsubstantiated or inaccurate. There would be no significant impacts related to air quality or GHG emissions; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

It is noted that one measure listed by commenter beginning with “Develop a traffic plan to minimize community impacts due to traffic flow interference from construction activities” is reflected in mitigation measure (MM) TRANS-1:

MM TRANS-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared by the Project Applicant/Property Owner for the review and approval of the City of Arcadia and any other affected jurisdictions in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Construction activities shall comply with the approved plan to the satisfaction of the City of Arcadia. The Project Applicant/Property Owner will begin coordination with the City on the Construction Management Plan as soon as practicable during the final design process and in advance of construction so that effective measures can be developed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate construction impacts to parking and circulation within the City of Arcadia downtown.

At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall:
y
y Describe the duration and location of lane closures.
y Address traffic control for any partial street closures, detours, or other disruption to traffic circulation during project construction, including as- needed use of flagpersons and signage.
y Identify the routes that construction vehicles would utilize for the delivery of construction materials to access the project site. Haul routes would follow the City’s approved truck routes and avoid residential streets. y Identify the location of parking and materials storage for construction workers during all phases of construction. Parking for construction workers would be provided on-site or at additional off-site locations that are not on public streets.
y Identify of emergency access points/routes.
y Specify the hours during which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent streets. y Require the contractor to keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The contractor shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer (or representative of the City Engineer), of any material, which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent streets or areas. y All hauling or transport of oversize loads would occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends or Federal holidays.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
yy Include details on the maintenance of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and connectivity through the Project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. y Require that haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to public traffic, pedestrians, bicyclists, and other users. y Provisions for the contractor to repair existing pavement, streets, curbs, sidewalks, and/or gutters that may be altered during project construction.

The repairs shall be completed in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
y Require that all construction-related parking and staging of vehicles will be kept out of the adjacent public roadways and will occur either on-site or on designated off-site parcels that would not adversely affect access to or parking within the downtown.

No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

Response 38. Commenter provides a lengthy disclaimer related the limited documentation regarding the Project received for use in their review, and is acknowledged.

COMMENT LETTER EXHIBIT D (IEE)
The following are responses to comments provided by Indoor Environmental Engineering (IEE) and provided as Exhibit D to the SAFER comment letter dated December 20, 2024 (Appendix A of this IS/MND).

Response 39. The commenter asserts the residents and employees of the Project would be exposed to a cancer risk associated with the formaldehyde found in some building materials and poor ventilation in the buildings and suggests a formaldehyde emissions assessment should be conducted as part of the CEQA review. The commenter also discusses outdoor air ventilation rates and indoor air contaminant concentrations in homes; interior noise levels and associated requirements for outdoor air ventilation; and that outdoor concentrations of PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter) due to tailpipe emissions will exceed California and federal standards, thus warranting high efficiency air filters be installed in the buildings.

Regardless of the merit of these assertions, the air quality experienced inside the proposed buildings does not represent an impact of the Project on the environment nor an exacerbation of an existing impact. The California Supreme Court has established that, as a general matter, CEQA does not require that the effects of environmental conditions upon a project’s future residents or users be considered. Two qualifications to this general rule apply where: (1) the legislature has specifically required consideration of the effects of the environment on future residents and users of a project and (2) the Project may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. These qualifications allow that where future occupants may exacerbate existing hazardous conditions, such as those found on official maps and land use plans (e.g., floodplains, coastlines, wildfire risk areas, airports), on the site of a proposed development, they may be assessed under CEQA as a potential environmental impact of that project. The exposure to indoor air contaminants due to the building materials of the project itself or the existing PM2.5 concentrations in the area do not fall into the category of an existing hazard on a site.

Lisa Flores
March 4, 2025

Psomas
Accordingly, as stated above, the Project’s indoor air quality is not a legitimate environmental impact that is appropriate to address in the IS/MND nor does the Project exacerbate an existing impact. Therefore, these assertions are irrelevant to the CEQA process; and commenter’s assertions that IEE’s commentary represents a new significant environmental impact that is not addressed in the IS/MND, thereby rendering the IS/MND inadequate, are unsupported by the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines as well as case law (Baird v. County of Contra Costa, 32 Cal.App.4th 1464; California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District [S213478, December 17, 2015]). No changes to the IS/MND are warranted.

R:\Projects\ARD\3ARD012200\Environmental Documentation\RTC\ATC_LD Appeal_Final RTC Memo-030425.docx

APPENDIX A

APPEAL APPLICATION

Appeal -1- 7/24
APPEAL NO. ____________

APPEAL APPLICATION

SUBJECT OF APPEAL
APPLICATION TYPE AND NUMBER(S): _______________________________________________________________ PROJECT ADDRESS: _____________________________________________________________________________ DATE THE DECISION BEING APPEALED WAS RENDERED: _____________________________________________

APPELLANT(S) NAME

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

E-MAIL ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO.

PROPERTY OWNER(S) NAME

MAILING ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

E-MAIL ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NO.

APPEAL INFORMATION:

In accordance with the procedures set forth in the Municipal Code of the City of Arcadia, I hereby appeal the decision of the following review authority:
܆Director or Designee’s Decision܆Planning Commission
܆Modification Committee܆Homeowner’s Association (please specify):
_________________________________________
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:

On a separate sheet, explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and the reason for the appeal.

SIGNATURES

THE APPELLANT AND PROPERTY OWNER HEREBY DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT ALL THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE DATE
PROPERTY OWNER’S SIGNATURE DATE
DATE FILED RECEIPT NO . PAID RECEIVED BY
LICANT
’

SSS SSSSSS IGNATURE

RMATION SUBMITTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEED FOR
Resolution No. 2164, MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, COD 22-25 5-19 W. Huntington Drive and 25-75 N. Santa Anita Avenue January 14, 2025
Supporter's Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (represented by Lozeau Drury LLP) 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland CA 94612
[email protected]
(510) 836-4200
1/24/2025
✔

ATTACHMENT A

Appeal -2- 7/24

CITY OF ARCADIA

APPEAL APPLICATION

INSTRUCTIONS AND FILING REQUIREMENTS WORKSHEET

REASON FOR APPEAL
Is the entire decision or only parts of it being appealed? տ Entire տ Part Are specific conditions of approval being appealed? տ Yes տ No If Yes, list the condition number(s) here: ____________________________________________ Attach a separate sheet(s) providing your reasons for the appeal and specifically state the point(s) at issue.

FILING REQUIREMENTS/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In order for this application to be processed without delay, the application must include all of the following materials. To ensure that your application package is complete, please check-off the boxes next to the required application materials.
‰‰ Completed application form
‰‰ Filing Fee - $728
‰‰ An Ownership Disclosure is required if the property is owned by a corporation, partnership, trust, or non-profit. The disclosure must reveal the agent for service of process or an officer of the ownership entity. The disclosure must list the names and addresses of all the owners, and you must attach a copy of the current corporate articles, partnership agreement, trust, or non-profit document, as applicable.
‰‰ Architectural Plans/Elevations: Two (2) full sized plans, two (2) reduced size plans at 11”x17”, and a digital copy in PDF format on a USB flash drive. ‰‰ HOA Appeals: ARB Findings and Action form is required when the applicant and/or property owner is filing the appeal.
‰‰ A 300-foot radius map and a mailing list in an Excel format and one set of labels. The mailing list must be in an Excel format and saved on a flash drive. Each lot must be consecutively numbered to correspond to the property owners list, map, and Excel spreadsheet.
i) The spreadsheet must identify the following fields: 1) Assessor’s Parcel Number; 2) Property Owner’s Name; 3) Mailing Address; 4) City, State, and Zip Code. Each column heading must be in the same order as listed above. ii) The names and addresses of current property owners may be obtained at the Los Angeles County Assessor’s office.
iii) Alternatively, applicants may retain the services of a mapping consultant to generate the radius map, labels, and electronic address list on an Excel spreadsheet on their behalf. A list of local mapping consultants may be obtained at the Planning Services offices.

Please note that a Planner may contact you if additional information is necessary prior to the hearing.

All Conditions of Approval
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔

VIA ONLINE PORTAL

January 24, 2025

Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner
Planning & Zoning Division
Development Services Department
City of Arcadia
240 West Huntington Drive
P.O. Box 60021
Arcadia, CA 91066
[email protected]

Re: Appeal to the Arcadia City Council
Arcadia Town Center Project (Resolution No. 2164, MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, COD 22-25)

Dear Mr. Arreola,

This appeal letter is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and/or working in or around the City of Arcadia to appeal the proposed Arcadia Town Center Project (“Project”) to the Arcadia City Council.

SAFER hereby appeals the entirety of the Arcadia Planning Commission’s January 14, 2025, decision to approve Resolution No. 2164, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approving MUP 19-11, TTM 21-02 (83325), ADR 19-09, and COD 22-25 for the Project.

The reasons and grounds for the appeal are contained in SAFER’s comment letter to the Planning Commission attached hereto as ATTACHMENT 1.

S i n c e r e l y ,

Hayley Uno

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1

ATTACHMENT 1






424<14A



3F8=
AA4>;0
'4=8>A
$;0==4A

8B0
;>A4B
4?DCH
4E4;>?<4=C
'4AE824B
8A42C>A

$;0==8=6

->=8=6
8E8B8>=


$;0==8=6

->=8=6
8E8B8>=

4E4;>?<4=C
'4AE824B
4?0AC<4=C

4E4;>?<4=C
'4AE824B
4?0AC<4= C
8CH
>5
A20380



 8 C H
>5
A20380

+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4

+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4


$#
>G


$  # 
>G


A20380




A20380






 A 2 0 3 8 0 






40AA4>;00A20380206>E


;5;>A4B0A20380206>E



!0A8;H==4
+8;0=34A
708A

=3

>=>A01;4
><<8BB8>=4AB

A20380
8CH
$;0==8=6
><<8BB8>=

+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4

$#
>G


A20380




?;0==8=60A20380206>E

%

/--%.4
/.
4(%
)4)'!4%$
%'!4)6%
%#,!2!4)/.
&/2
4(%
2#!$)!
/7.

%.4%2
2/*%#4


/







40A
!A
AA4>;0
!B
;>A4B
0=3

>=>A01;4
!4<14AB
>5
C74
A20380
8CH
$;0==8=6

><<8BB8>=



(78B
2><<4=C
8B
BD1<8CC43
>=
1470;5
>5
'D??>AC4AB
;;80=24
5>A
=E8A>=<4=C0;
&4B?>=B818;8CH
M'&N
A460A38=6
C74
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=
M!"N
?A4?0A43
5>A
C74
A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C
'

">



M$A>942CN
;>20C43
>=
C74
2A>BBBCA44CB

>5
+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4
0=3
">AC7
'0=C0
=8C0
E4=D4
8=
3>F=C>F=
A20380

(74
$A>942C
8=E>;E4B
C74
34E4;>?<4=C
>5
0
58E4BC>AH


D=8C
<8G43DB4
A4B834=C80;
0=3
2><<4A280;

1D8;38=6
F8C7
>=4
;4E4;
>5
01>E46A>D=3
?0A:8=6
0=3
>=4
;4E4;
>5
D=34A6A>D=3
?0A:8=6


B
38B2DBB43
14;>F
C74A4
8B
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
$A>942C
<0H
A4BD;C
8=
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
=>8B4
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
(74A45>A4
'&
A4B?42C5D;;H
A4@D4BCB
C70C
C74
8CH
>5
A20380
M8CHN
?A4?0A4
0=
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02C
A4?>AC
M
&N
145>A4
0??A>E8=6
C74
$A>942C
C>
0=0;HI4
0=3
<8C860C4
C74B4
8<?02CB
8=
022>A30=24
F8C7
C74
0;85>A=80
=E8A>=<4=C0;
%D0;8CH
2C
M%N


'&PB
A4E84F
>5
C74
!"
F0B
0BB8BC43
1H
4G?4AC
F8;3;854
18>;>68BC
A
'70F=
2 3
4

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5





'<0;;F>>3
$7
=>8B4
4G?4AC
=8
(>=274E0
5A><
C74
02>DBC820;
2>=BD;C8=6
58A<
+8;B>=
7A86

08A
@D0;8CH
4G?4ACB
!0CC

064<0==
$


6
0=3
A
$0D;
&>B4=54;3
$7
5A><
C74

4=E8A>=<4=C0;
2>=BD;C8=6
58A<
'>8;+0C4A8A
$A>C42C8>=
=C4A?A8B4
M'+$N
0=3
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
4G?4AC
0=3
24AC85843
8=3DBCA80;
7H684=8BC
A0=28B
#554A<0==
$
 

A
'<0;;F>>3PB

FA8CC4=
2><<4=CB
0=3
*
0A4
0CC02743
74A4C>
0B
G7818C

0=3
0A4
8=2>A?>A0C43
74A48=
1H
A454A4=24
8=
C748A
4=C8A4CH
!B
(>=274E0PB
FA8CC4=
2><<4=CB
0=3
*
0A4
0CC02743
74A4C>
0B
G7818C

0=3
0A4
8=2>A?>A0C43
74A48=
1H
A454A4=24
8=
C748A
4=C8A4CH
'+$PB
FA8CC4=
2><<4=CB
0=3
*
0A4
0CC02743
74A4C>
0B
G7818C

0=3
0A4
8=2>A?>A0C43
74A48=
1H
A454A4=24
8=
C748A
4=C8A4CH
!A
#554A<0==PB
FA8CC4=
2><<4=CB
0=3
*
0A4
0CC02743
74A4C>
0B
G7818C

0=3
0A4
8=2>A?>A0C43
74A48=
1H
A454A4=24
8=
C748A
4=C8A4CH















(74
$A>942C
8=E>;E4B
C74
2>=BCAD2C8>=
>5
0
=4F
58E4BC>AH
<8G 43DB4
A4B834=C80;
0=3
2><<4A280;
1D8;38=6
F8C7
0
C>C0;
2><18=43
5;>>A
0A40
>5



B@D0A4
544C
(74
1D8;38=6

8=2;D34B



B@D0A4
544C
>5
2><<4A280;
B?024
>=
C74
6A>D=3
5;>>A

C
F8;;
0;B>
70E4




<D;C850<8;H
A4B834=C80;
D=8CB
8=2;D38=6


>=4143A>><
D=8CB


CF>143A>><
D=8CB
0=3

C7A44143A>><
D=8CB
(74
$A>942C
70B


B@D0A4
544C
>5
A4B834=C80;
0<4=8CH
B?024
0=3



B@D0A4
544C
>5
?D1;82
0=3
?A8E0C4
>?4=
B?024
338C8>=0;;H
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
>=4
;4E4;
>5
6A>D=35;>>A
?0A:8=6
0=3
>=4
;4E4;
>5
BD1C4AA0=40=
?0A:8=6
5>A

?0A:8=6
B?024B
C>C0;
(74

$A>942C
A4@D8A4B
C74
6A038=6
>5
0??A>G8<0C4;H



2D182
H0A3B
>5
40AC7
0B
F4;;




(74
$A>942C
8=E>;E4B
C74
2>=B>;830C8>=
>5
58E4
4G8BC8=6
2>=C86D>DB
?0A24;B
4=2><?0BB8=6



02A4B
8=C>
0
B8=6;4
;>C
>22D?H8=6



=4C
02A4B



B@D0A4
544C
>5
1D8;301;4
;>C
0A40

(74
$A>942C
B8C4PB
BB4BB>A
$0A24;
"D<14AB
0A4












0=3


;;

?0A24;B
>=
C74
B8C4
70E4
0
;0=3
DB4
34B86=0C8>=
>5
>F=C>F=
!8G43)B4
0=3
0A4
I>=43
0B
>F=C>F=
!8G43)B4




(74
B8C4
8B
;>20C43
0C


+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4
0=3


">AC7
'0=C0
=8C0
E4=D4

8=
0
5D;;H
34E4;>?43
?>AC8>=
>5
C74
3>F=C>F=
0A40
>5
C74
8CH
>5
A20380
(74
B8C4
8B
1>D=343
1H
+4BC

D=C8=6C>=
A8E4
C>
C74
B>DC7
">AC7
'0=C0
=8C0
E4=D4
C>
C74
40BC
!>A;0=
$;024
C>
C74
=>AC7
0=3
0=
;:B
>364
C>
C74
F4BC
(74
B8C4
8B
BDAA>D=343
C>
C74
=>AC7
40BC
0=3
F4BC
1H
4G8BC8=6
DA10=
34E4;>?<4=C
8=2;D38=6
A4C08;
40C4A84B
>55824B
0
20A
340;4AB78?
0=3
0BB>280C43
BDA5024
?0A:8=6
'8=6;450<8;H
A4B834=24B
0A4
;>20C43
01>DC

544C
=>AC7F4BC
>5
C74
B8C4
02A>BB

0=3
<D;C850<8;H
A4B834=24B
0A4
;>20C43
01>DC


544C
B>DC740BC
>5
C74
B8C4
0;>=6
'0=C0
=8C0

E4=D4
A20380
>D=CH
$0A:
8B
;>20C43
8<<4380C4;H
B>DC7
>5
C74
B8C4
02A>BB
+4BC
D=C8=6C>=

A8E4



(74
$A>942C
B8C4
2DAA4=C;H
2>=C08=B
4;4E4=
C>C0;
2><<4A280;
1D8;38=6B
8=2;D38=6
C4=
>=4 BC>AH
1D8;38=6B
0=3
>=4
CF>BC>AH
1D8;38=6
0=3
0BB>280C43
BDA5024
?0A:8=6
;>CB
;;
4G8BC8=6
34E4;>?<4=C
>=
C74
B8C4
F>D;3
14
34<>;8B743
5>A
C74
$A>942C
(74
$A>942C
F8;;
0;B>
A4<>E4


4G8BC8=6
CA44B
>=
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
8=2;D38=6
B8G
CA44B
?A>C42C43
1H
C74
8CH




4 cont
5

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5












B
C74
0;85>A=80
'D?A4<4
>DAC
74;3
M.8/5
=>

&
70B
144=
?A4?0A43
5>A
0
=>=4G4<?C

?A>942C
1DC
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
8=
C74
A42>A3
BD??>ACB
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
?A>942C
<0H
A4BD;C
8=
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
C74
?A>?4A
A4<43H
8B
C>
>A34A
?A4?0A0C8>=
>5
0=
 &N

 *((0)$/$ .
!*-


 // -

)14/
1
*0/#
*
./
$-
0
'$/2
"(/

$./





0;
C7





M'86=85820=C
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542CN
8B
3458=43
E4AH
1A>03;H
0B
M0
BD1BC0=C80;
>A
?>C4=C80;;H
BD1BC0=C80;
03E4AB4
270=64
8=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CN
$D1
&4B
>34
.M$&N/
J



B44
0;B>

0;85>A=80
>34
>5
&46D;0C8>=B
.M&N/
J




=
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C

=443
=>C
14
M<><4=C>DBN
C>
<44C
C74
%
C4BC
5>A
B86=85820=24
8C
8B
4=>D67
C70C
C74
8<?02CB
0A4
M=>C
CA8E80;N
*
$'
)

1
$/2
*!
*.
)" ' .




0;
3



M(74
O5>A4<>BC

?A8=28?;4P
8=
8=C4A?A4C8=6
%
8B
C70C
C74
468B;0CDA4
8=C4=343
C74
02C
C>
14
A403
B>
0B
C>
055>A3
C74
5D;;4BC
?>BB81;4
?A>C42C8>=
C>
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
F8C78=
C74
A40B>=01;4
B2>?4
>5
C74
BC0CDC>AH
;0=6D064N
 *((0)$/$ .
!*-


 // -

)14/
1

'
 .
" )
2




0;??
C7






(74

&
8B
C74
E4AH
740AC
>5
%

& -.!$ '
$/$3 ).
!*-
*

'
*)/-*'
1
$/2
*!


& -.!$ '




0;??
C7





*
& /
-*/
/*-.
1
$/2
*!


-
( )/*




0;??
C7




(74

&
8B
0=
M4=E8A>=<4=C0;
O0;0A<
14;;P
F7>B4
?DA?>B4
8B
C>
0;4AC
C74
?D1;82
0=3
8CB
A4B?>=B81;4
>558280;B
C>
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
270=64B
145>A4
C74H
70E4
A402743
C74
42>;>6820;
?>8=CB
>5
=>
A4CDA=N

& -.!$ '
$/$3 ).
.0+-


0;??
C7
0C


(74

&

0;B>
5D=2C8>=B
0B
0
M3>2D<4=C
>5
022>D=C018;8CHN
8=C4=343
C>
M34<>=BCA0C4
C>
0=
0??A474=B8E4
28C8I4=AH
C70C
C74
064=2H
70B
8=
502C
0=0;HI43
0=3
2>=B834A43
C74
42>;>6820;
8<?;820C8>=B
>5
8CB
02C8>=N

0- '
 $"#/.
(+-*1 ( )/.
..)
1
 " )/.
*!
)$1
*!
'




0;
3





(74

&
?A>24BB
M?A>C42CB
=>C
>=;H
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
1DC
0;B>
8=5>A<43
B4;56>E4A=<4=CN
*
& /
-*/
/*-.

0;??
C7







=

&
8B
A4@D8A43
85
MC74A4
8B
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
8=
;867C
>5
C74
F7>;4
A42>A3
145>A4
C74
;403
064=2H
C70C
C74
?A>942C
<0H
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CN
$&
J

 3
B44
0;B>
*
& /
-*/
/*-.
BD?A0

0;??
C7
0C


=
!"
8=BC403
>5
0=


&
8B
?A>?4A
>=;H
85
?A>942C
A4E8B8>=B
F>D;3
0E>83
>A
<8C860C4
C74
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
45542CB
834=C85843
8=
C74
8=8C80;
BCD3H
MC>
0
?>8=C
F74A4
2;40A;H
=>
B86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
F>D;3
>22DA
0=3



C74A4
8B
=>
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
8=
;867C
>5
C74
F7>;4
A42>A3
145>A4
C74
?D1;82
064=2H
C70C
C74
?A>942C
0B
A4E8B43
<0H
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CN
 %$

1
$/2
*!
*.
)" ' .



0;??
C7



.@D>C8=6
$&
JJ




 2
/

=
C70C
2>=C4GC
M<0HN
<40=B
0
A40B>=01;4
?>BB818;8CH
>5
0
B86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
$&
JJ



0




0
*
& /
-*/
/*-.
.0+-


0;??
C7

0C



"0
!*-
-*/
/$*)
*!

&'
).
/

$./*-$

 .
1
$/2
*!

&'
)





0;??
C7


 



=

&
<DBC
14
?A4?0A43
A0C74A
C70=
0=
!"
MF74=4E4A
8C
20=
14
508A;H
0A6D43
>=
C74
10B8B
>5
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
C70C
C74
?A>942C
<0H
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02CN
*
$'
)

1
$/2
*!
*.
)" ' .




0;
3


)=34A
C78B
M508A
0A6D<4=CN
BC0=30A3
0=


&
8B
A4@D8A43
85
0=H
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
8=
C74
A42>A3
8=3820C4B
C70C
0
?A>942C
<0H
70E4
0=
6

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5





03E4AB4
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542CL4E4=
85
2>=CA0AH
4E834=24
4G8BCB
C>
BD??>AC
C74
064=2HPB
3428B8>=


&
J

 
5

*
& /
-*/
/*-.
.0+-


0;??
C7
0C



/
)$.'

0.
00
*)

*
$ /2
1
*0)/2
*!
/
)$.'

0.



0;??
C7



 

0
$'
*/
)$

'

- ).

*0)
)

1
$/2
*!

)
$)$/
.





0;??
C7





(74
M508A
0A6D<4=CN

BC0=30A3
2A40C4B
0
M;>F
C7A4B7>;3N
50E>A8=6
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
A4E84F
C7A>D67
0=
 &
A0C74A
C70=

C7A>D67
8BBD0=24
>5
=460C8E4
342;0A0C8>=B
>A
=>C824B
>5
4G4<?C8>=
5A><
%
* & /

-*/
/*-.
BD?A0

0;??
C7
0C





(74
M508A
0A6D<4=CN
BC0=30A3
8B
E8ACD0;;H
C74
>??>B8C4
>5
C74
CH?820;
3454A4=C80;
BC0=30A3
022>A343
C>
064=284B
B
0
;4038=6
%
CA40C8B4
4G?;08=B


(78B
O508A
0A6D<4=CP
BC0=30A3
8B
E4AH
38554A4=C
5A><
C74
BC0=30A3
=>A<0;;H
5>;;>F43
1H
?D1;82
064=284B
8=
<0:8=6
03<8=8BCA0C8E4
34C4A<8=0C8>=B
#A38=0A8;H
?D1;82
064=284B
F4867
C74
4E834=24
8=
C74
A42>A3
145>A4
C74<
0=3
A4027
0
3428B8>=
10B43
>=
0
?A4?>=34A0=24
>5
C74
4E834=24
.8C0C8>=B/
(74
508A
0A6D<4=C
BC0=30A3
1H
2>=CA0BC
?A4E4=CB
C74
;403
064=2H
5A><
F48678=6
2><?4C8=6
4E834=24
C>
34C4A<8=4
F7>
70B
0
14CC4A
0A6D<4=C
2>=24A=8=6
C74
;8:4;87>>3
>A
4GC4=C
>5
0
?>C4=C80;
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02C
(74
;403
064=2HPB
3428B8>=
8B
C7DB
;0A64;H
;460;
A0C74A
C70=
502CD0;
8C
3>4B
=>C
A4B>;E4
2>=5;82CB
8=
C74
4E834=24
1DC
34C4A<8=4B
>=;H
F74C74A
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
4G8BCB
8=
C74
A42>A3
C>
BD??>AC
C74
?A4B2A8143
508A
0A6D<4=C



>BC:0

-8B72:4
-

/$

) -


J


??




(74
>DACB
70E4
4G?;08=43
C70C

M8C
8B
0
@D4BC8>=
>5
;0F
=>C
502C
F74C74A
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
4G8BCB
0=3
C74
2>DACB
>F4
=>
3454A4=24
C>
C74
;403
064=2HPB
34C4A<8=0C8>=
&4E84F
8B
34
=>E>
F8C7
0
?A454A4=24
5>A
A4B>;E8=6
3>D1CB
8=
50E>A
>5
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
A4E84FN
*
& /
-*/
/*-.
BD?A0

0;??
C7
0C














(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
-!8
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
!$6%23%
)-0!#43
/.
")/,/')#!,
2%3/52#%3



G?4AC
F8;3;854
18>;>68BC
A
'70F=
'<0;;F>>3
$7
70B
A4E84F43
C74
$A>942CPB
!"
8CB
18>;>6820;
C427=820;
A4?>AC
0=3
>C74A
A4;4E0=C
3>2D<4=CB
A460A38=6
C74
$A>942CPB
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB
B
38B2DBB43
14;>F
A
'<0;;F>>3
5>D=3
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
03E4AB4;H
05542C
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
1420DB4


C74
!"
508;43
C>
022>D=C
5>A
C74
38E4AB8CH
>5
B?4284B
?A4B4=C
>=
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
8=2;D38=6
B4E4A0;
B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B
 
C74
!"
8=034@D0C4;H
0=0;HI43

C74
$A>942CPB
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
F8;3;854
0=3


C74
!"PB
?A>?>B43
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
0A4

8=BD558284=C
C>
A43D24
C74
$A>942CPB
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB




(%

&!),%$
4/
!##/5.4
&/2
4(%
$)6%23)48
/&
30%#)%3
02%3%.4
/.
4(%
2/*%#4
3)4%
).#,5$).'
3%6%2!,
30%#)!,34!453
30%#)%3



A
'<0;;F>>3PB
0BB>280C4
18>;>68BC
">A8:>
'<0;;F>>3
!'
2>=3D2C43
0
$A>942C
B8C4
E8B8C
>=
424<14A



5>A


7>DAB
G

0C


DA8=6
74A
E8B8C
!B
'<0;;F>>3
34C42C43

6 cont
7

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5




B?4284B
>5
E4AC41A0C4
F8;3;854
0C
>A
039024=C
C>
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
8=2;D38=6
B8G
B?4284B
F8C7
B?4280;
BC0CDB
C74
;;4=PB
7D<<8=618A3
C74
0;85>A=80
6D;;
0=3
C74
"DCC0;;PB
F>>3?42:4A
F7827
0A4
0;;
;8BC43
0B
8A3B
>5
>=B4AE0C8>=
>=24A=
1H
C74
)'
8B7

+8;3;854
'4AE824
0=3
C74
>>?4APB
70F:
A43C08;43
70F:
0=3
?4A46A8=4
50;2>=
F7827
0A4
0;;
8A3B
>5
$A4H
D=34A
C74
0;85>A=80
8B7


0<4
>34

0C







)B8=6
0
=>=;8=40A
A46A4BB8>=
<>34;
A
'<0;;F>>3
?A4382C43
C70C
01>DC

C>C0;
B?4284B
>5
E4AC41A0C4
F8;3;854
F4A4
0E08;01;4
C>
14
34C42C43
0C
C74
B8C4
3DA8=6
!B
'<0;;F>>3PB
424<14A


E8B8C
CF824
C74
=D<14A
>5
B?4284B
B74
02CD0;;H
34C42C43

0C

;C7>D67
!B
'<0;;F>>3PB
B8C4
E8B8C
>=;H
;0BC43


7>DAB
A
'<0;;F>>3
0;B>
20;2D;0C43
C70C
2>=C8=D43
0=3
<>A4
4GC4=B8E4
BDAE4HB
F>D;3
A4E40;
0=
4E4=
6A40C4A
38E4AB8CH
>5
F8;3;854
0C
C74
B8C4
D?
C>



B?4284B
>5
E4AC41A0C4
F8;3;854
8=2;D38=6


B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B

0C







(>
02784E4
C74
%PB
?A8<0AH
>1942C8E4
C>
38B2;>B4
?>C4=C80;
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02CB
>5
0
?A>?>B43
?A>942C
C74
18>;>6820;
0=0;HB8B
B7>D;3
834=C85H
F7827
F8;3;854
B?4284B
0A4
:=>F=
C>
>22DA
0C
C74
?A>?>B43
?A>942C
B8C4
F7827
B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B
0A4
;8:4;H
C>
>22DA
0=3
C74
;8<8C0C8>=B
>5
C74
BDAE4H
455>ACB
38A42C43
C>
C74
B8C4
=0;HBCB
=443
C78B
8=5>A<0C8>=
C>
270A02C4A8I4
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
B4CC8=6
0B
0
10B8B
5>A
?A4382C8=6
?>C4=C80;
?A>942C
8<?02CB
C>
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
G

0C





%
A4@D8A4B
6>E4A=<4=C
064=284B
C>
34B2A814
C74
M4=E8A>=<4=C0;
B4CC8=6N
>5
C74
$A>942C
%

D834;8=4B
J

 
3

 %$

1
$/2
*!
*.
)" ' .



0;??
C7


(74
M4=E8A>=<4=C0;
B4CC8=6N
8B
3458=43
0B
MC74
?7HB820;
2>=38C8>=B
F7827
4G8BC
F8C78=
C74
0A40
F7827
F8;;
14
05542C43
1H
0
?A>?>B43
?A>942C
8=2;D38=6
;0=3
08A
F0C4A
<8=4A0;B
5;>A0
50D=0
0<184=C
=>8B4
0=3
>1942CB
>5
78BC>A82
>A
04BC74C82
B86=85820=24N
 D834;8=4B
J


 
.

D834;8=4B
J

 
$"#/#*0.

$ '


#
 .
0
1
$/2
*!

)/

-03



0;??
C7

 




4A4
C74
!"
383
=>C
?A>E834
C74
A4BD;CB
>5
0=H
584;3
BDAE4HB
2>=3D2C43
C>
34C42C
18A3B
>A
>C74A
F8;3;854
>=
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
G

0C


&460A38=6
C74
;02:
>5
18A3
BDAE4HB
8=

?0AC82D;0A
A
'<0;;F>>3
BC0C43
C70C
C74
M;02:
>5
BDAE4HB
;40E4B
C74
8CH
>5
A20380
1;8=3
C>
0=H
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB
C>
18A3B
1420DB4
F8C7>DC
0
BDAE4H
C74A4
8B
=>
B>D=3
10B8B
5>A
270A02C4A8I8=6
C74
4G8BC8=6
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
B4CC8=6N

$A>24438=6
F8C7
C74
?A>942C
F8C7>DC
2><?;4C8=6
0E80=
BDAE4HB
2>D;3
0;B>
A4BD;C
8=
7867
18A3
<>AC0;8CH
A0C4B
5A><
F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B
0=3
2>BCB
C>
C74
1D8;38=6PB
>F=4A
85
C74
F8=3>FB
A4@D8A4
18A3B054
6;0BB
4
5DAC74A
=>C4B
C70C
C74
!"
508;B
C>

A4?>AC
C74
8<?>AC0=24
>5
C74
B8C4PB
CA44B
C>
18A3B
F7827
8B
8<?>AC0=C
1420DB4
C74
B8C4PB
CA44B
45542C8E4;H
2A40C4
>?4=
B?024
0=3
E4AC820;
7018C0C
5>A
18A3B



338C8>=0;;H
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
?A>E834
C74
A4BD;CB
>5
0=H
34B:C>?
A4E84F
>5
0E08;01;4
;8C4A0CDA4
0=3
30C010B4B
C>
834=C85H
>22DAA4=24
A42>A3B
>5
B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B
>A
0BB4BB
C74
>22DAA4=24
A0C4B
>5
0E80=
B?4284B
8=
C74
$A>942C
0A40

0C


A
'<0;;F>>3
BC0C43
C70C

34B:C>?
A4E84F
8B
8<?>AC0=C
C>
8=5>A<
584;3
BDAE4HB
0=3
BD??;4<4=C
8=C4A?A4C0C8>=
>5
C748A
58=38=6B

0C


0B43
>=
78B
A4E84F
>5
0E08;01;4
30C010B4B
BD27
0B
48A3
0=3
8"0CDA0;8BC
A
'<0;;F>>3
4BC8<0C4B
C70C

B?4280;BC0CDB
18A3
B?4284B
0A4
:=>F=
C>
>22DA
2;>B4
4=>D67
C>
7 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





C74
$A>942C
B8C4
C>
F0AA0=C
0=0;HB8B
>5
C748A
>22DAA4=24
?>C4=C80;

0C







(7DB
1H
508;8=6
C>
022DA0C4;H
270A02C4A8I4
C74
18>;>6820;
B?4284B
DB8=6
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
8=2;D38=6
C74
502C
C70C
C74
B8C4
BD??>ACB
0C
;40BC
B8G
B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B
C74
!"
8=034@D0C4;H
34B2A814B
C74
$A>942CPB
M4=E8A>=<4=C0;
B4CC8=6N
0=3
C74A41H
8=BD558284=C;H
0=0;HI4B
C74
$A>942CPB
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB

0C


A
'<0;;F>>3
C74A45>A4
2>=2;D34B
C70C
MC74A4
8B
0C
;40BC
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C>
14
<034
5>A
C74
=443
C>
?A4?0A4
0=

&
C>
022DA0C4;H
270A02C4A8I4
C74
F8;3;854

2><<D=8CH
>=
C74
?A>942C
B8C4N

0C







(%2%
)3
35"34!.4)!,
%6)$%.#%
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
7),,
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
)-0!#43
/.
")/,/')#!,
2%3/52#%3
4(!4
4(%

&!),3
4/
!.!,89%
!.$
-)4)'!4%



A
'<0;;F>>3
2>=2;D343
C70C
C74
!"
8=034@D0C4;H
033A4BB43
C74
$A>942CPB
E0A8>DB
B86=85820=C
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
8=2;D38=6
 
8=C4A54A4=24
F8C7
F8;3;854
<>E4<4=C



18A3F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=
<>AC0;8CH


CA05582
<>AC0;8CH
0=3


2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB



=C4A54A4=24
F8C7
+8;3;854
!>E4<4=C



(74
!"
8=2;D34B
=>
0=0;HB8B
>5
F74C74A
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
8=C4A54A4
F8C7
;>20;
F8;3;854
<>E4<4=C

A
'<0;;F>>3
5>D=3
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
2;40A;H
8=C4A54A4
F8C7
F8;3;854
<>E4<4=C
8=
C74
0A40
1420DB4
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
8=B4AC
0
<83A8B4
1D8;38=6
8=C>
C74
08AB?024
C70C
70B
;>=6
144=
DB43
1H
18A3B
5>A
<86A0C8>=
38B?4AB0;
7><4
A0=64
?0CA>;
0=3
5>A068=6

A
'<0;;F>>3
C7DB
2>=2;D343
C70C
M0
508A
0A6D<4=C
20=
14
<034
5>A
C74
=443
C>
?A4?0A4
0=
 &
C>

0??A>?A80C4;H
0=0;HI4
C74
?A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB
C>
E>;0=C
F8;3;854
0=3
7>F
C7>B4
8<?02CB
C>
<>E4<4=C
20=
14
<8C860C43N



8A3+8=3>F
>;;8B8>=B



22>A38=6
C>
A
'70F=
'<0;;F>>3
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
8<?02C
>=
18A3B
0B
0
A4BD;C
>5
F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B
(74
8CH
70B
=>C
0=0;HI43
>A
<8C860C43
C74B4
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB
>=
B?4280;BC0CDB
18A3
B?4284B
=0;HI8=6
C74
?>C4=C80;
8<?02C
>=
F8;3;854
5A><
F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B
8B
4B?4280;;H
8<?>AC0=C
1420DB4
M.F/8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B
0A4
>5C4=
270A02C4A8I43
0B
48C74A
C74
B42>=3
>A
C78A3
;0A64BC
B>DA24
>5
7D<0=20DB43
18A3
<>AC0;8CHN




(74
$A>942C
F>D;3
2>=BCAD2C
0
58E4BC>AH
1D8;38=6
F7827
F>D;3
4G?>B4
;>20;
18A3B
C>
<0=H
F8=3>FB
2><?>B8=6
C74
1D8;38=6PB
502034B
1DC
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
A4?>AC
C74
5D;;
4GC4=C
>5
4GC4A8>A
6;0BB
F8=3>FB
>=
C74
?A>?>B43
1D8;38=6

0C



>F4E4A
A
'<0;;F>>3
?A4382CB


B@D0A4
<4C4AB
>5
4GC4A8>A
6;0BB
>=
C74
?A>942C
1D8;38=6

0B43
>=
C78B
0<>D=C
>5
4GC4A8>A
6;0BB
A
'<0;;F>>3
4BC8<0C4B
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
20DB4


0==D0;
18A3
340C7B
5A><

F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B

A
'<0;;F>>3PB
30C010B4
A4E84F
0=3
!B
'<0;;F>>3PB
B8C4
E8B8C
8=3820C4
C70C
C74A4
0A4
0C
;40BC

B?4280;BC0CDB
18A3
B?4284B
F8C7
C74
?>C4=C80;
C>
DB4
C74
08AB?024
0A>D=3
C74
$A>942C
B8C4

0C


!>BC
>5
C74
?A4382C43
18A3F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=
340C7B
F>D;3
14
>5
18A3B
?A>C42C43
D=34A
C74
5434A0;
!86A0C>AH
8A3
(A40CH
2C
0=3
C74
0;85>A=80
!86A0C>AH
8A3
$A>C42C8>=
2C
MC7DB
20DB8=6
B86=85820=C
D=<8C860C43
8<?02CBN

0C



8E4=
C74
4BC8<0C43

7 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





;4E4;
>5
18A3F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=
<>AC0;8CH
0=3
C74
!"PB
;02:
>5
?A>?>B43
<8C860C8>=
A
'<0;;F>>3
2>=2;D343
C70C
MC74
?A>?>B43
?A>942C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
8=
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
18>;>6820;
8<?02CBN

(74
8CH
C7DB
<DBC
?A4?0A4
0=
 &
C>
0=0;HI4
0=3
<8C860C4
C74

$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB
5A><
18A3F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B


(A05582

<?02CB




A
'<0;;F>>3
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
0=0;HI4
C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB
C>
F8;3;854
5A><
A>03
2>;;8B8>=
<>AC0;8CH

0B
0
A4BD;C
>5
8=2A40B43
CA05582
64=4A0C43
1H
C74
$A>942C

B
A
'<0;;F>>3
4G?;08=B
E4782;4
2>;;8B8>=B
70E4
022>D=C43
5>A
C74
340C7B
>5
<0=H
C7>DB0=3B
>5
0<?78180=
A4?C8;4
<0<<0;
18A3
0=3
0AC7A>?>3
50D=0
0=3
C74
8<?02CB
70E4
>5C4=
144=
5>D=3
C>
14
B86=85820=C
0C
C74
?>?D;0C8>=
;4E4;

A
'<0;;F>>3
?A>E834B
B4E4A0;
BCD384B
34<>=BCA0C8=6
B86=85820=C
0=8<0;
340C7B
3D4
C>
2>;;8B8>=B
8=
C74
C7>DB0=3B
?4A

:8;><4C4AB
>5

A>03
?4A
H40A

0C


(74
!"
508;B
C>
0=0;HI4
F74C74A
8=2A40B43
CA05582
64=4A0C43
1H
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
8=
B86=85820=C
8<?02CB
C>
F8;3;854


(74
!"
4BC8<0C4B





0==D0;
E4782;4
<8;4B
CA0E4;43
M*!(BN
5>A
4<?;>H44B

0B43
>=
C78B
4BC8<0C4
A
'<0;;F>>3
20;2D;0C43
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
20DB4
0??A>G8<0C4;H


E4AC41A0C4
F8;3;854
50C0;8C84B
?4A
H40A
3D4
C>
2>;;8B8>=B
F8C7
?A>942C64=4A0C43
CA05582


4
C74A45>A4
2>=2;D343
C70C
MC74
?A>942C64=4A0C43
CA05582
F>D;3
20DB4
BD1BC0=C80;
B86=85820=C
8<?02CB
C>
F8;3;854N
0
?>C4=C80;
8<?02C
C70C
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
0=0;HI4

0C



A
'<0;;F>>3PB
2><<4=CB
C7DB
2>=BC8CDC4
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
BD??>AC8=6
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB
CA05582
F8;;
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
8<?02C
>=
B?4280;BC0CDB
B?4284B
>5
F8;3;854
=
 &
8B

A4@D8A43
C>
0=0;HI4
0=3
<8C860C4
C78B
8<?02C


D<D;0C8E4

<?02CB




%
3>2D<4=CB
BD27
0B
C74
!"
<DBC
38B2DBB
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
0=3
<8C860C4
B86=85820=C
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB


&
J



0
(78B
A4@D8A4<4=C
5;>FB
5A><
%

'42C8>=



F7827
A4@D8A4B
0
58=38=6
C70C
0
?A>942C
<0H
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
85



(74
?>BB81;4
45542CB
>5
0
?A>942C
0A4
8=38E83D0;;H
;8<8C43
1DC
2D<D;0C8E4;H
2>=B834A01;4



OD<D;0C8E4;H
2>=B834A01;4P
<40=B
C70C
C74
8=2A4<4=C0;
45542CB
>5
0=
8=38E83D0;
?A>942C
0A4
2>=B834A01;4
F74=
E84F43
8=
2>==42C8>=
F8C7
C74
45542CB
>5
?0BC
?A>942CB
C74
45542CB
>5
>C74A
2DAA4=C
?A>942CB
0=3
C74
45542CB
>5
?A>101;4
5DCDA4
?A>942CB




;460;;H
034@D0C4
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
0=0;HB8B
E84FB
0
?0AC82D;0A
?A>942C
>E4A
C8<4
0=3
8=
2>=9D=2C8>=
F8C7
>C74A
A4;0C43
?0BC
?A4B4=C
0=3
A40B>=01;H
5>A4B4401;4
?A>101;4
5DCDA4
?A>942CB
F7>B4
8<?02CB
<867C
2><?>D=3
>A
8=C4AA4;0C4
F8C7
C7>B4
>5
C74
?A>942C
0C
70=3



+78;4
02:=>F;4368=6
=4F
$A>942CA4;0C43
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB
C74
!"
508;B
C>
0=0;HI4
C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
2D<D;0C8E4
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB
=BC403
C74
!"
38B<8BB4B

7 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





F8C7>DC
4E834=24
C74
?>C4=C80;
5>A
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
BC4<<8=6
5A><
C74
$A>942C
1H
2;08<8=6
C70C
2><?;80=24
F8C7
0??;8201;4
;0=3
DB4
0=3
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
A46D;0C8>=B
F>D;3
4=BDA4
C70C
M4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542CB
0BB>280C43
F8C7
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
=>C
2><18=4
F8C7
45542CB
5A><
A40B>=01;H
5>A4B4401;4
5DCDA4
34E4;>?<4=C
8=
C74
8CH
C>
20DB4
2D<D;0C8E4;H
2>=B834A01;4
B86=85820=C
8<?02CBN
!"
0C




(74
?A>1;4<
F8C7
C78B
0=0;HB8B
0B
8C
0??;84B
C>
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
8B
C70C
C74
!"
28C4B
=>
B?428582
A4@D8A4<4=CB
C70C
F>D;3
BD1BC0=C80;;H
;4BB4=
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
C>
F8;3;854
8=
C74
0A40



(74
@D4BC8>=
C70C
%
A4@D8A4B
C74
8CH
C>
033A4BB
0=3
C70C
C74
!"
508;B
C>
033A4BB
8B
F74C74A
C74
$A>942CPB
8<?02CB
F8;;
14
B86=85820=C
F74=
2><18=43
F8C7
>C74A
?0BC
2DAA4=C
0=3
?A>101;4
5DCDA4
?A>942CB
H
508;8=6
C>
?A>E834
C78B
10B82
8=5>A<0C8>=
C74
!"PB
2D<D;0C8E4
18>;>6820;
8<?02C
0=0;HB8B
8B
=>C
BD??>AC43
1H
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24


A
'<0;;F>>3
5>D=3
C70C
C74
M.!"PB/
0=0;HB8B
>5
?>C4=C80;
?A>942C
2>=CA81DC8>=B
C>
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
8B
5;0F43N
BC0C8=6
C70C
C74
!"
M?A>E834B
=>
4G?;0=0C8>=
>5
7>F
8<?;4<4=C8=6
?0AC82D;0A
A4@D8A4<4=CB
>5
C74
8CHPB

4=4A0;
$;0=
F>D;3
<8=8<8I4
0E>83
>A
>55B4C

C74
?A>942CPB
2>=CA81DC8>=B
C>
2D<D;0C8E4
8<?02CB
>=
F8;3;854N
G

0C


A
'<0;;F>>3

20;2D;0C43
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB
8=2A4<4=C0;
45542CB
F>D;3
8=2;D34


0==D0;
18A3
50C0;8C84B
5A><

F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B
0B
F4;;
0B


C>


0==D0;
E4AC41A0C4
F8;3;854
50C0;8C84B
3D4
C>
2>;;8B8>=B
F8C7
?A>942C
64=4A0C43
CA05582

0C


8:4F8B4
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
5A06<4=C
C74
04A80;
7018C0C
>5
E>;0=C
F8;3;854
1H
8=B4AC8=6
0
6;0BB2>E4A43
<83A8B4
1D8;38=6
8=C>
08AB?024
78BC>A820;;H
DB43
1H
E>;0=C
F8;3;854






(%
:3
02/0/3%$
-)4)'!4)/.
-%!352%3
!2%
).35&&)#)%.4
4/
2%$5#%
4(%
2/*%#4:3
!$6%23%
")/,/')#!,
)-0!#43




(74
!"
>554AB
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
A43D24
C74
$A>942CPB
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
#=4
?A>?>B43
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4
!8C860C8>=
!40BDA4
&&
 #

8B
C74

34;0H43
34E4;>?<4=C
>5
;0=3B20?4
?;0=B

0C



>F4E4A
C78B
2>=BC8CDC4B
3454AA43

<8C860C8>=
F7827
%
?A>7818CB




%
38B0;;>FB
3454AA8=6
C74
5>A<D;0C8>=
>5
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
?>BC0??A>E0;
BCD384B
%

D834;8=4B
J




0

0)./-*(
1
*0)/2
*!
 )*
$)*



0;??
3





=
064=2H
<0H
>=;H
3454A
C74
5>A<D;0C8>=
>5
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
F74=
8C
?>BB4BB4B
MO<40=8=65D;
8=5>A<0C8>=P
A40B>=01;H
9DBC85H8=6
0=
4G?42C0C8>=
>5
2><?;80=24N
0)./-*(
0C


.

'.*


-
( )/*
'
$/2
..*
$
/$*)
1
$/2
*0)
$'
*!



-
( )/*





0;??
3





<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
<0H
14
3454AA43
>=;H

M5>A
:8=3B
>5
8<?02CB
5>A
F7827
<8C860C8>=
8B
:=>F=
C>
14
540B81;4N

;403
064=2H
8B
?A42;D343
5A><
<0:8=6
C74
A4@D8A43
%
58=38=6B
D=;4BB
C74
A42>A3
B7>FB
C70C
0;;
D=24AC08=C84B
A460A38=6
C74
<8C860C8>=
>5
8<?02CB
70E4
144=
A4B>;E43
0=
064=2H
<0H
=>C
A4;H
>=
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
>5
D=24AC08=
4558202H
>A
540B818;8CH
$)".
*0)/2

-(
0-
0
1
$/2
*!

)!*-

 

0;??
3




58=38=6
6A>D=3F0C4A
?DA270B4
06A44<4=C
8=034@D0C4
<8C860C8>=
1420DB4
C74A4
F0B
=>
4E834=24
C70C
A4?;024<4=C
F0C4A
F0B
0E08;01;4
(78B
0??A>027
74;?B
M8=BDA4
C74
8=C46A8CH
>5
C74
?A>24BB
>5
3428B8>=<0:8=6
1H
?A42;D38=6
BCD11>A=
?A>1;4<B
>A
B4A8>DB
2A8C828B<
7 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





5A><
148=6
BF4?C
D=34A
C74
AD6N
 *)
-) 
$/$3 ).
*!
*./

 .

)

1
)

$./

"-$
0'/0-
'
..)



0;
3







+78;4
B?428582
34C08;B
>5
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4
<0H
14
3454AA43
0=
064=2H
8B
A4@D8A43
C>
 

2><<8C
8CB4;5
C>
<8C860C8>=


03>?C
B?428582
?4A5>A<0=24
BC0=30A3B
C74
<8C860C8>=
F8;;
02784E4
0=3


834=C85H
C74
CH?4B
>5
?>C4=C80;
02C8>=B
C70C
20=
540B81;H
02784E4
C70C
?4A5>A<0=24
BC0=30A3
0=3
C70C
F8;;
14
2>=B834A43
0=0;HI43
0=3
?>C4=C80;;H
8=2>A?>A0C43
8=
C74
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4

- . -1
$'

)/
1
$/2
*!

)/




0;??
C7

 




)

*
,0$)

+/*-
 .
0
)/ -
1
*0)/2
*!
 -





0;??
C7








!>A4>E4A
M<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4.B/
.C70C
3>/
=>
<>A4
C70=
A4@D8A4
0
A4?>AC
14
?A4?0A43
0=3
5>;;>F43N
3>
=>C
?A>E834
034@D0C4
8=5>A<0C8>=
5>A
8=5>A<43
3428B8>=<0:8=6
D=34A
%

)
)" - 


$/
/.

"0 
)

1
*0)/2
*!
-
)"



0;??
C7




D834;8=4B
J




0

H
3454AA8=6
C74
34E4;>?<4=C
>5
B?428582
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C74
8CH
70B
45542C8E4;H
?A42;D343
?D1;82
8=?DC
8=C>
C74
34E4;>?<4=C
>5
C7>B4
<40BDA4B
%
?A>7818CB
C78B
0??A>027
B
4G?;08=43
1H
C74
2>DAC
8=
*((0)$/$ .
!*-

 // -

)14/
1

$
#(*)






0;??
C7
 





.&/4;80=24
>=
C4=C0C8E4
?;0=B
5>A
5DCDA4
<8C860C8>=
05C4A
2><?;4C8>=
>5
C74
%
?A>24BB
B86=85820=C;H
D=34A<8=4B
%PB
6>0;B
>5
5D;;
38B2;>BDA4
0=3
8=5>A<43
3428B8>=<0:8=6
0=3./
2>=B4@D4=C;H
C74B4
<8C860C8>=
?;0=B
70E4
144=
>E4ACDA=43
>=
9D38280;
A4E84F
0B
2>=BC8CDC8=6
8<?A>?4A
3454AA0;
>5
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
0BB4BB<4=C


!8C860C8>=
!40BDA4
&&

#

2>=BC8CDC4B
3454AA43
<8C860C8>=
1420DB4
8C
4=C08;B

5>A<D;0C8=6
;0=3B20?4
?;0=B
0C
0=
D=B?4285843
5DCDA4
30C4
G

0C


(74
8CH
70B
=>C

2><<8CC43
8CB4;5
C>
<8C860C8>=
03>?C43
B?428582
?4A5>A<0=24
BC0=30A3B
C74
<8C860C8>=
F8;;
02784E4
>A
834=C85843
C74
CH?4B
>5
?>C4=C80;
02C8>=B
C70C
20=
540B81;H
02784E4
C74
?4A5>A<0=24
BC0=30A3B



(74
8CH
20==>C
A4;H
>=
C74
34E4;>?<4=C
>5
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
8=
C74
5DCDA4
1420DB4
C74A4
8B
=>
F0H
C>
4=BDA4
C70C
C74
<8C860C8>=
F8;;
14
034@D0C4
>A
4G0<?;4
74A4
145>A4
$A>942C
0??A>E0;
C74
?D1;82
70B
=>
F0H
C>
4=BDA4
C70C
C74
;0=3B20?4
?;0=B
F8;;
14=458C
F8;3;854

0C


(78B
3454AA43
<8C860C8>=
8B
8=E0;83
D=34A
%
0=3
C74
$A>942CPB
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
A4<08=
B86=85820=C
=

&
8B
A4@D8A43
C>
34E4;>?
2;40A
4=5>A2401;4
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
033A4BB
C74
$A>942CPB
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB


338C8>=0;;H
C74
!"
?A>?>B4B
>C74A
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
BD27
0B
?A42>=BCAD2C8>=
=4BC8=6
18A3
BDAE4HB
0=3
?A>2DA4<4=C
>5
=424BB0AH
?4A<8CB

>F4E4A
A
'<0;;F>>3

2>=2;D34B
C70C
C74B4
<40BDA4B
F>D;3
=>C
0E>83
C74
;>=6C4A<
B86=85820=C
18>;>6820;
8<?02CB
20DB43
1H
?4A<0=4=C
7018C0C
34BCAD2C8>=
;>BB
>5
A4?A>3D2C8E4
20?028CH
0C
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
0=3
8=2A40B43
F8;3;854
<>AC0;8CH
5A><
?A>942C64=4A0C43
CA05582
0=3
F8=3>F
2>;;8B8>=B

0C



A
'<0;;F>>3PB
2><<4=CB
C7DB
2>=BC8CDC4
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
F>D;3
A4<08=
B86=85820=C
=424BB8C0C8=6
?A4?0A0C8>=
>5
0=
 &



7 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5





A
'<0;;F>>3
8=BC403
>554AB
=D<4A>DB
>C74A
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C70C
C74
8CH
B7>D;3
8<?;4<4=C
C>
A43D24
C74
$A>942CPB
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
B7>D;3
C74
$A>942C
?A>2443
$>C4=C80;
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
8=2;D34
DB4
>5
18A3B054
6;0BB
0=3
F8=3>F
CA40C<4=CB
2><?4=B0C>AH
<8C860C8>=
5>A
A>03
<>AC0;8CH
5D=38=6
>5
F8;3;854
A47018;8C0C8>=
5028;8C84B
0=3
=0C8E4
?;0=C
;0=3B20?8=6

0C








(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
-!8
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
!$6%23%
)-0!#43
/.
./)3%
!.$
6)"2!4)/.




">8B4
4G?4AC
=8
(>=274E0
5A><
C74
02>DBC820;
2>=BD;C8=6
58A<
+8;B>=
7A86
70B

A4E84F43
C74
$A>942CPB
!"
8CB
=>8B4
0=3
E81A0C8>=
C427=820;
A4?>ACB
8=
??4=38G

0=3
>C74A

A4;4E0=C
3>2D<4=CB
A460A38=6
C74
$A>942CPB
=>8B4
0=3
E81A0C8>=
8<?02CB
B
38B2DBB43
14;>F
!B
(>=274E0
2>=2;D343
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
03E4AB4;H
05542C
=>8B4
0=3
E81A0C8>=
;4E4;B
1420DB4
 

C74
!"PB
=>8B4
0=0;HB8B
A4;84B
>=
0=
8=034@D0C4
=>8B4
10B4;8=4
 
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
A4BD;C
8=

?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>8B4
8<?02CB
0=3
 
C74
!"PB
>?4A0C8>=0;
=>8B4
0=0;HB8B

8B
8=BD558284=C
(7DB
74A
4G?4AC
2><<4=CB
2>=BC8CDC4
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
>5
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
B86=85820=C
8<?02CB
>=
=>8B4
0=3
E81A0C8>=





(%
:3
./)3%
!.!,83)3
2%,)%3
/.
!.
).!$%15!4%,8
%34!",)3(%$
./)3%
"!3%,).%




!B
(>=274E0
2>=2;D343
C70C
C74
<0==4A
8=
F7827
C74
!"
34C4A< 8=43
C74
4G8BC8=6
=>8B4
10B4;8=4
F0B
5;0F43
>A
4G0<?;4
B74
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"PB
0<184=C
=>8B4
<40BDA4<4=CB
F4A4
C0:4=
0C
C74
$A>942C
1>D=30A84B
A0C74A
C70=
0C
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
BD27
0B
=40A1H
A4B834=24B
;>20C43


544C
5A><
C74
B8C4
>=
'>DC7
'0=C0
=8C0
E4=D4
0=3


544C
5A><
C74
B8C4
>=
'0=C0

;0A0
'CA44C
G

0C


!"
0C



'74
0;B>
5>D=3
C70C
C74
B7>ACC4A<
0<184=C
=>8B4
;4E4;
<40BDA4<4=CB
20?CDA43
=48C74A
C74
5;D2CD0C8>=
>5
=>8B4
;4E4;B
>E4A
C74
30H
=>A
C74
039DBC<4=C
>5
=>8B4
F8C7
38BC0=24
5A><
C74
B>DA24B
<40BDA43
G

0C

!"
0C


B
C74
!"
8CB4;5

02:=>F;43643
MC74
0<184=C
F>D;3
5;D2CD0C4
>E4A
C74
2>DAB4
>5
4027
F>A:30H
0B
F4;;
0B
10B43
>=
38BC0=24
0=3
A4;0C8E4
;>20C8>=
5A><
C74
B8C4N
!"
0C

!>A4>E4A
C74
=>8B4

<40BDA4<4=CB
2;>B4
C>
C74
'0=C0
;0A0
A4B834=24B
F4A4
3><8=0C43
1H
*
=>8B4
38A42C;H
=4GC

C>
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
G

0C







!B
(>=274E0
C7DB
2>=2;D343
C70C
C74
$A>942C
<DBC
?4A5>A<
?A>? 4A;H
3>2D<4=C43
0<184=C
<40BDA4<4=CB
=40A
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
C70C
20?CDA4
C74
2DAA4=C
10B4;8=4
2>=38C8>=B
3DA8=6
@D84C
?4A8>3B
>5
C74
30H
0=3
=867C
C>
34C4A<8=4
C74
8<?02C
>5
2>=BCAD2C8>=
0=3
>?4A0C8>=0;
=>8B4

(74
8CH
C74A45>A4
<DBC
?A4?0A4
0=

&
C>
0=0;HI4
C74B4
?>C4=C80;
8<?02CB





(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
7),,
2%35,4
).
0/4%.4)!,,8
3)'.)&)#!.4
#/.3425#4)/.
./)3%
)-0!#43




!B
(>=274E0
0;B>
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"
508;43
C>
38B2;>B4
0=3
<8 C860C4
C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
=>8B4
8<?02CB
5A><
2>=BCAD2C8>=
(74
!"
2;08<B
C70C
C74A4
0A4
=>
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
=40A
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
1DC
8C
40A;84A
834=C85843
A4B834=24B
0B
2;>B4
0B

544C

7 cont
8

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





5A><
C74
B8C4
>=
'0=C0
=8C0
E4=D4
0=3
3>4B
=>C
?A4382C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>8B4
8<?02CB
0C
C74B4
A4B834=24B
!"
0C





!B
(>=274E0
4BC8<0C4B
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>8B4
;4E4;B
F>D;3
A0=64
5A><

C>

342814;B
0C
C74
'0=C0
=8C0
A4B834=24B
0=3

C>

342814;B
0C
C74
'0=C0
;0A0
A4B834=24B
G

0C






DAC74A<>A4
!B
(>=274E0
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"
508;43
C>
4G?;828C;H
4BC01;8B7
0=H
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>8B4
2A8C4A80

C
A454A4=243
C74
=>8B4
;8<8CB
>5
C74
8CH
>5
A20380
">8B4
#A38=0=24
M#A38=0=24N
1DC
><8CC43
C74
#A38=0=24PB
039DBC<4=CB
C>
=>8B4
;8<8CB
5>A
8<?D;B8E4
B>D=3B
8CH
>5
A20380
">8B4
#A38=0=24
J


1
!"
0C


G

0C


(74
#A38=0=24PB

30HC8<4
=>8B4
;8<8C
5>A
A4B834=C80;
;0=3
8B

342814;B
(7DB
0C
C74
'0=C0
=8C0
A4B834=24B
C74
?A4382C43
=>8B4
;4E4;B
F>D;3
4G2443
C74
#A38=0=24
;8<8C
1H

C>

342814;B
4G2;D38=6
0=H
4GCA0
=>8B4
8<?02CB
5A><
8<?D;B8E4
=>8B4
B>DA24B
;8:4
902:70<<4AB

0C





(74
%

D834;8=4B
28C43
8=
C74
!"
BC0C4
C70C
=>8B4
8<?02CB
0A4
B86=85820=C
85
C74
?A>?>B43
?A>942C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
8=
M64=4A0C8>=
>5
0
BD1BC0=C80;
C4<?>A0AH
>A
?4A<0=4=C
8=2A40B4
8=
0<184=C
=>8B4
;4E4;BN
!"
0C

 

>F4E4A
C74
!"
;02:B
0
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
5>A
0

MBD1BC0=C80;
8=2A40B4N
5>A
$A>942C
=>8B4
G

0C


(74
!"
DB4B
B7>ACC4A<
0<184=C
=>8B4

;4E4;B
>5


C>

3
5>A
30HC8<4
7>DAB
1DC
0B
38B2DBB43
01>E4
C74B4
<40BDA4<4=CB
F4A4
=>C
C0:4=
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
0=3
F4A4
8=034@D0C4
C>
022DA0C4;H
270A02C4A8I4
;>20;
0<184=C
=>8B4
;4E4;B
G

0C


!"
0C



!B
(>=274E0
5>D=3
C70C
C74
?A4382C43
=>8B4
;4E4;
5>A
34<>;8C8>=
0C
C74
'0=C0
;0A0
A4B834=24B
8B

342814;B

342814;B
>E4A
C74
0<184=C
=>8B4
;4E4;

0C
C74
F4BC4A=
$A>942C
1>D=30AH
(78B

342814;
8=2A40B4
8B
BD1942C8E4;H
740A3
0B
0=
0??A>G8<0C4
3>D1;8=6
8=
;>D3=4BB

0C





338C8>=0;;H
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
38B2DBB
0=H
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
5>A
C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
=>8B4
8<?02CB

0C

!B
(>=274E0
4BC8<0C4B
C70C
=>8B4

10AA84AB
0C
C74
?4A8<4C4A
>5
C74
B8C4
2>D;3
A43D24
=>8B4
1H

C>


342814;B
1DC
=>C4B
C70C

2>=CA02C>AB
20=
14
A4;D2C0=C
C>
DB4
10AA84AB
1420DB4
C74H
B;>F
?A>3D2C8>=

0C





#E4A0;;
C74
8CH
<DBC
?A4?0A4
0=

&
C>
?A>?4A;H
4E0;D0C4
C74
$A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=

=>8B4
8<?02CB
8=2;D38=6
C74
=>8B4
8=2A40B4
>E4A
0<184=C
;4E4;B
0C
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>A
;>20C8>=B
B
!B
(>=274E0
BC0C4B
M85
C74
8=2A40B4
8B
B86=85820=C
C74
$A>942C
<DBC
?A>?4A;H
4E0;D0C4
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
A43D24
C74
8<?02CB
C>
;4BB
C70=
B86=85820=CN

0C





(%
:3
/0%2!4)/.!,
./)3%
!.!,83)3
)3
).#/-0,%4%






(74
!"
2;08<B
F8C7>DC
4E834=24
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
= >
>?4A0C8>=0;
=>8B4
8<?02C

>F4E4A
!B
(>=274E0
5>D=3
C70C
!"
834=C85843

*
=>8B4
0B
0
?>C4=C80;

>?4A0C8>=0;
=>8B4
B>DA24
1DC
;02:43
0=H
@D0=C8C0C8E4
0=0;HB8B
C>
?A4382C
C74
4G?42C43
;4E4;B
>5
<4270=820;
=>8B4

0C

!"
0C


!B
(>=274E0
0;B>
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"
508;43
C>

033A4BB
?>C4=C80;
=>8B4
8<?02CB
5A><
C74
$A>942CPB
?0A:8=6
60A064
4=CA0=24
>A
E4=C8;0C8>=
BHBC4<
G

0C






8 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5







(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
-!8
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
!)2
15!,)48
)-0!#43



8A
@D0;8CH
4G?4ACB
!0CC

064<0==
$


6
0=3
A
$0D;
& >B4=54;3
$7
5A><
C74

4=E8A>=<4=C0;
2>=BD;C8=6
58A<
'>8;+0C4A8A
$A>C42C8>=
=C4A?A8B4
M'+$N
70E4
A4E84F43
C74
$A>942CPB
!"
8CB
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
6A44=7>DB4
60B
C427=820;
A4?>ACB
8=
??4=38G

0=3
>C74A
A4;4E0=C
3>2D<4=CB
A460A38=6
C74
$A>942CPB
08A
@D0;8CH
8<?02CB
B
38B2DBB43
14;>F
'+$
2>=2;D343
C70C
C74A4
8B
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
03E4AB4;H
05542C
08A
@D0;8CH
1420DB4


C74
!"
A4;843
>=
0=
8=034@D0C4
08A
@D0;8CH
0=0;HB8B
 
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
B86=85820=C

8<?02CB
A4;0C43
C>
08A
?>;;DC0=C
740;C7
A8B:B
C70C
C74
!"
508;43
C>
034@D0C4;H
033A4BB
 
C74

!"
8=034@D0C4;H
4E0;D0C43
C74
$A>942CPB
6A44=7>DB4
60B
M

N
8<?02CB
0=3


C74
!"

3>4B
=>C
8=2;D34
0;;
540B81;4
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
033A4BB
C74
$A>942CPB
08A
@D0;8CH
8<?02CB
'+$
A42><<4=3B
C70C
M.0/=
=E8A>=<4=C0;

<?02C
&4?>AC



B7>D;3
14
?A4?0A43
C>

034@D0C4;H
0BB4BB
0=3
<8C860C4
C74
?>C4=C80;
08A
@D0;8CH
740;C7
A8B:
0=3

8<?02CB
C70C
C74

?A>942C
<0H
70E4
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CN
G

0C








(%

2%,)%$
/.
!.
).!$%15!4%
!)2
15!,)48
!.!,83)3



0=3
DB4
34E4;>?<4=C
?A>942CB
D=34A
%
CH?820;;H
4E0;D0C4
08A
@D0;8CH
8<?02CB
0=3
20;2D;0C4
?>C4=C80;
2A8C4A80
08A
?>;;DC0=C
4<8BB8>=B
DB8=6
C74
0;85>A=80
<8BB8>=B
BC8<0C>A
!>34;
M0;!>3N
)B8=6
B8C4B?428582
8=?DC
34C08;B
C74
<>34;
20;2D;0C4B
0
?A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=
0=3
>?4A0C8>=0;
4<8BB8>=B
64=4A0C8=6
M>DC?DC
58;4BN
(74
>DC?DC
58;4B
34B2A814
F70C
?0A0<4C4AB
F4A4
DB43
8=
20;2D;0C8=6
C74
?A>942CPB
08A
?>;;DC0=C
4<8BB8>=B
0=3
B7>F
F74A4
3450D;C
E0;D4B
F4A4
270=643

0C








4A4
'+$
5>D=3
C70C
C74
!"
0=3
8CB
08A
@D0;8CH
C427=820;
A 4?>ACB
8=
??4=38G

508;43
C>
?A>E834
2><?;4C4
0;!>3
>DC?DC
58;4B

CB
58;4B
8=2;D343
;0=3
DB4
8=?DCB
1DC
><8CC43

0;;
>C74A
@D0;8C0C8E4
>DC?DCB
A460A38=6
C74
$A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=
0=3
>?4A0C8>=0;
4<8BB8>=B
0=3
C74H
0;B>
><8CC43
34C08;B
>=
270=64B
C>
C74
<>34;PB
3450D;C
E0;D4B

0C

??4=38G

0C




+8C7>DC
0224BB
C>
C78B
30C0
'+$
F0B
D=01;4
C>
E4A85H
C74
?>C4=C80;
B86=85820=24
0=3
022DA02H
>5
C74
!"
08A
@D0;8CH
<>34;8=6
G

0C



'+$
2>=2;D343
C70C
M.0/=

&

B7>D;3
14
?A4?0A43
C>
38B2;>B4
C74
$A>942CPB
2><?;4C4
0;!>3
>DC?DC
58;4B
0=3
0374A4
C>
%PB
5>A<0;
6D834;8=4BN

0C







(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
-!8
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
)-0!#43
2%,!4%$
4/
!)2
0/,,54!.4
(%!,4(
2)3+3
4(!4
4(%

&!),%$
4/
!$%15!4%,8
!$$2%33


(74
!"
34C4A<8=43
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
8=
0
=46;8681;4
740;C7
A8B:
8<?02C
F8C7>DC
?4A5>A<8=6
0
2>=BCAD2C8>=
740;C7
A8B:
0=0;HB8B
M &N
4E4=
C7>D67
%
A4@D8A4B
0;;

?A>?>B43
?A>942CB
C>
2>==42C
C748A
08A
?>;;DC0=C
4<8BB8>=B
C>
?>C4=C80;
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
7D<0=
740;C7

(74
!"
C74A45>A4
E8>;0C4B
%
1420DB4
8C
3>4B
=>C
2>==42C
C74
$A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=A4;0C43
4<8BB8>=B
>5
384B4;
?0AC82D;0C4
<0CC4A
M$!N
0
:=>F=
7D<0=
20A28=>64=
C>
?>C4=C80;
740;C7
A8B:B
C>
=40A1H
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB

!>A4>E4A
C74
!"
3>4B
=>C
2><?0A4
C74
$A>942CPB
4G24BB
20=24A
A8B:
C>
C74
%
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
>5
C74
'>DC7
>0BC
8A
%D0;8CH
!0=064<4=C
8BCA82C
M'%!N


9

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5







'+$PB
>F=
0;!>3
20;2D;0C8>=B
B7>F43
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB
2>=BCAD2C8>=
02C8E8C84B
F8;;
?A>3D24
01>DC


?>D=3B
>5
$!
>E4A
C74

<>=C7
2>=BCAD2C8>=
?4A8>3

'+$

C74=
2>=3D2C43
0=

&
C>
<40BDA4
C74
740;C7
A8B:B
5A><
C74B4
$!
4<8BB8>=B
DB8=6
&'&"
0
B2A44=8=6;4E4;
08A
@D0;8CH
38B?4AB8>=
<>34;
C70C
<40BDA4B
C74
<0G8<D<
?>C4=C80;
2>=24=CA0C8>=B
>5
08A
2>=C0<8=0=CB
05542C8=6
=40A1H
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>AB
BD27
0B
8=50=CB

'+$
=>C43
C70C
85
M&'&"
8=3820C4B
0
?>C4=C80;
08A
@D0;8CH
70I0A3
0
34C08;43
<>34;8=6
0=0;HB8B
8B
A4@D8A43
145>A4
$A>942C
0??A>E0;N




A><
8CB

&
'+$
5>D=3
C70C
C74
4G24BB
20=24A
A8B:
5A><
C74
$A>942CPB
$!
4<8BB8>=B
0C
C74
=40A4BC
B4=B8C8E4
A424?C>A
F>D;3
14

?4A
<8;;8>=
5>A
8=50=CB
>E4A
C74

<>=C7
2>=BCAD2C8>=
?4A8>3

0C

(78B
50A
4G2443B
C74
'%!PB
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
>5

?4A
<8;;8>=

0C

'+$
C7DB
2>=2;D343
C70C
MC78B
A4BD;CB
8=
0
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
8<?02C
=>C
?A4E8>DB;H
033A4BB43
>A
834=C85843
8=
C74

'!"N
0=3
M0=

&
B7>D;3
14
?A4?0A43

C>
8=2;D34
0
2><?A474=B8E4

&
C70C
?A>?4A;H
4E0;D0C4B
8<?02CB
5A><
2>=BCAD2C8>=N

0C





(%

&!),%$
4/
!$%15!4%,8
!33%33
4(%
2/*%#4:3
)-0!#43
/.
'2%%.(/53%
'!3
%-)33)/.3




(74
!"
4BC8<0C4B
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
?A>3D24
=4C
0==D0;

4<8BB8>=B
>5





<4CA82
C>=B
>5
20A1>=
38>G834
4@D8E0;4=CB
?4A
H40A

>F4E4A
1420DB4
C74
!"PB

0;!>3
>DC?DC
58;4B
383
=>C
?A>E834
C74
4<8BB8>=
4BC8<0C4B
>A
0=H
A4;4E0=C
8=?DCB
0B834
5A><
;0=3
DB4B
'+$
F0B
D=01;4
C>
E4A85H
C74
;468C8<02H
>5
C74

4<8BB8>=
4BC8<0C4B
C74
!"

?A>E834B

B
0
A4BD;C
C74
$A>942CPB

4<8BB8>=B
2>D;3
14
D=34A4BC8<0C43

'+$

2>=2;D34B
C70C
MD=C8;
0=

&
8B
?A4?0A43
C>
8=2;D34
2><?;4C4
0;!>3
>DC?DC
58;4B
F4
20==>C
4=BDA4
C74
$A>942CPB

4<8BB8>=B
0A4
022DA0C4;H
20;2D;0C43
0=3
C74

'!"PB

0=0;HB8B

B7>D;3
=>C
14
A4;843
D?>=


N






(%

$/%3
./4
).#,5$%
!,,
&%!3)",%
-)4)'!4)/.
-%!352%3
4/
!$$2%33
4(%
2/*%#4:3
!)2
15!,)48
)-0!#43




420DB4
C74
$A>942C
F>D;3
A4BD;C
8=
B86=85820=C
740;C7
A8B:B
C >
8=38E83D0;B
8=
C74
2><<D=8CH
0A>D=3
C74
$A>942C
B8C4
MC74

'!"
<DBC
8=2;D34
0;;
540B81;4
<8C860C8>=
C>
033A4BB

C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
740;C7
A8B:BN
G

0C

D834;8=4B
J

 6


'+$
>554AB
E0A8>DB
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C70C
C74
8CH
2>D;3
4E0;D0C4
C>
A43D24
C74
$!
4<8BB8>=B
5A><
$A>942C
2>=BCAD2C8>=
'D27
<40BDA4B
8=2;D34
0<>=6
>C74A
C78=6B
<8=8<8I0C8>=
>5
D==424BB0AH
E4782D;0A
0=3
<0278=4AH
DC8;8I0C8>=
>5
2;40=
5D4;
64=4A0C>AB
0=3
4G8BC8=6
?>F4A
B>DA24B
DB4
>5
0;C4A=0C8E4
5D4;
0=3
4;42CA82
4@D8?<4=C
0=3
A4@D8A43
8<?;4<4=C0C8>=
>5
(84A


4@D8?<4=C
>A
14CC4A
5>A
0;;
4=68=4B
01>E4

7>AB4?>F4A
G

0C

(74B4
<40BDA4B
F>D;3
45542C8E4;H
A43D24
$A>942CA4;0C43
$!
4<8BB8>=B
1H
8=C46A0C8=6
;>F4A4<8CC8=6
34B86=
540CDA4B
8=C>
C74
$A>942C
8=
CDA=
<8=8<8I8=6
4<8BB8>=B
3DA8=6
2>=BCAD2C8>=

0C

'+$
2>=2;D34B
C70C
M0=

&
B7>D;3
14
?A4?0A43
C>
8=2;D34
0;;
540B81;4
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B

N






9 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064

>5





 

(%2%
)3
!
&!)2
!2'5-%.4
4(!4
4(%
2/*%#4
-!8
(!6%
3)'.)&)#!.4
!$6%23%
)-0!#43
/.
).$//2
!)2
15!,)48




4AC85843
8=3DBCA80;
7H684=8BC
A0=28B
#554A<0==
$
 

70B
A4E84F43
C74
$A>942C

C74
8A42C>APB
4C4A<8=0C8>=
0=3
>C74A
3>2D<4=CB
A460A38=6
C74
$A>942CPB
8=3>>A
08A
4<8BB8>=B
(74B4
3>2D<4=CB
?A>E834
=>
0=0;HB8B
>5
C74
$A>942CPB
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
8<?02CB
!A
#554A<0==
2>=2;D34B
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
4G?>B4
8CB
5DCDA4
A4B834=CB
C>
B86=85820=C
740;C7
8<?02CB
A4;0C43
C>
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
?0AC82D;0A;H
4<8BB8>=B
>5
C74
20=24A20DB8=6
274<820;
5>A<0;347H34
!A
#554A<0==
8B
0
;4038=6
4G?4AC
>=
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
70B
?D1;8B743
4GC4=B8E4;H
>=
C74
C>?82





!A
#554A<0==
4G?;08=B
C70C
<0=H
2><?>B8C4
F>>3
?A>3D2CB
DB43
8=
1D8;38=6
<0C4A80;B
2><<>=;H
5>D=3
8=
A4B834=24B
2>=C08=
5>A<0;347H3410B43
6;D4B
F7827
A4;40B4
5>A<0;347H34
60B
>E4A
0
E4AH
;>=6
?4A8>3
>5
C8<4

4
BC0C4B
M(74
?A8<0AH
B>DA24
>5
5>A<0;347H34
8=3>>AB
8B
2><?>B8C4
F>>3
?A>3D2CB
<0=D502CDA43
F8C7
DA405>A<0;347H34
A4B8=B
BD27
0B
?;HF>>3
<438D<
34=B8CH
5814A1>0A3
0=3
?0AC82;4
1>0A3
(74B4
<0C4A80;B
0A4
2><<>=;H
DB43
8=
A4B834=C80;
>55824
0=3
A4C08;
1D8;38=6
2>=BCAD2C8>=
5>A
5;>>A8=6
2018=4CAH
10B41>0A3B
F8=3>F
B7034B
8=C4A8>A
3>>AB
0=3
F8=3>F
0=3
3>>A
CA8<BN
G

0C






>A<0;347H34
8B
0
:=>F=
7D<0=
20A28=>64=
2;0BB85843
1H
C74
'C0C4
0B
0
(>G82
8A
>=C0<8=0=C
(74
'%!
70B
4BC01;8B743
0
%
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
5>A
08A1>A=4
20=24A
A8B:
>5


?4A
<8;;8>=
!A
#554A<0==
5>D=3
C70C
5DCDA4
$A>942C
>22D?0=CB
<0H
14
4G?>B43
C>
0
20=24A
A8B:
5A><
5>A<0;347H34
4<8BB8>=B
>5
01>DC

?4A
<8;;8>=
5>A
A4B834=CB
0=3


?4A

<8;;8>=
5>A
2><<4A280;
4<?;>H44B
4E4=
0BBD<8=6
C70C
0;;
<0C4A80;B
2><?;H
F8C7
C74
0;85>A=80
8A
&4B>DA24B
>0A3PB
M&N
5>A<0;347H34
08A1>A=4
C>G82B
2>=CA>;
<40BDA4

0C


(78B
4G2443B
C74
'%!PB
%
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
5>A
08A1>A=4
20=24A
A8B:

0C




!A
#554A<0==
2>=2;D34B
C70C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
B86=85820=C
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02CB
C70C
<DBC
14
0=0;HI43
8=
0=

&
>A
!"
0=3
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
<DBC
14
8<?>B43
C>
A43D24
C74
A08B43
20=24A
A8B:

0C




!A
#554A<0==
?A4B2A814B
0
<4C7>3>;>6H
5>A
4BC8<0C8=6
C74
$A>942CPB
5>A<0;347H34
4<8BB8>=B
5>A
0
<>A4
?A>942CB?428582
740;C7
A8B:
0BB4BB<4=C

0C




4
0;B>
834=C8584B
540B81;4
B4E4A0;
<8C860C8>=
<40BDA4B
C>
342A40B4
C74
B86=85820=C
740;C7
A8B:B
;8:4
8=BC0;;8=6
08A
E4=C8;0C8>=
BHBC4<B
0=3
A4@D8A8=6
C74
DB4
>5
2><?>B8C4
F>>3
<0C4A80;B
>=;H
5>A
0;;
8=C4A8>A
58=8B7
BHBC4<B
C70C
0A4
<034
F8C7
&0??A>E43
=>03343
5>A<0;347H34
M"N
A4B8=B
>A
D;CA0;>F
4<8CC8=6
5>A<0;347H34
M) N
A4B8=B

0C








+74=
0
?A>942C
4G2443B
0
3D;H
03>?C43
%
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
0B
74A4
C78B
0;>=4
4BC01;8B74B
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
C70C
C74
?A>942C
F8;;
70E4
0
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02C

=3443
8=
<0=H
8=BC0=24B
BD27
08A
@D0;8CH
C7A4B7>;3B
0A4
C74
>=;H
2A8C4A80
A4E84F43
0=3
CA40C43
0B
38B?>B8C8E4
8=
4E0;D0C8=6
C74
B86=85820=24
>5
0
?A>942CPB
08A
@D0;8CH
8<?02CB
 
"

# )
&
1
*0)/2
*!
*)*(






0;??
C7



.>D=CH
0??;84B
8A
8BCA82CPB

M?D1;8B743
%
@D0=C8C0C8E4
2A8C4A80N
0=3
MC7A4B7>;3
;4E4;
>5
2D<D;0C8E4
B86=85820=24N/
.

'.*
*((0)$/$ .
!*-


 // -

)1$-*)( )/
1

'$!*-)$

 .*0-
.
" )
2




0;??
C7




.M
OC7A4B7>;3
>5
B86=85820=24P
5>A
0
68E4=
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542C
8B
B8<?;H
C70C
;4E4;
0C
F7827
C74
;403
064=2H
58=3B
C74
45542CB
>5
C74
?A>942C
C>
14
B86=85820=CN/
(74
10

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5





0;85>A=80
'D?A4<4
>DAC
70B
B7>F=
C74
8<?>AC0=24
0=
08A
38BCA82C
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
70B
8=
?A>E838=6
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
>5
0
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02C
 *((0)$/$ .
!*-

 // -

)1$-*)( )/
1
*0/#
*
./
$-
0
'$/2

)
" ( )/

$./





0;
C7





.4BC8<0C43
4<8BB8>=B
8=
4G24BB
>5
08A
38BCA82CPB
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3B
M2>=BC8CDC4
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
BD??>AC8=6
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
5>A
0
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02CN/
'8=24
4G?4AC
4E834=24
B7>FB
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
4G2443
C74
'%!PB
%
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
C74A4
8B
BD1BC0=C80;
4E834=24
C70C
0=
MD=BCD3843
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542C./N
4G8BCB

-$ ).

*!
*''
*!

)

/ *

- ).
1

)

/ *
/2
(/2
*''

$./





0;C7






(74
8CHPB
508;DA4
C>
033A4BB
C74
$A>942CPB
5>A<0;347H34
4<8BB8>=B
8B
2>=CA0AH
C>
C74
0;85>A=80
'D?A4<4
>DACPB
3428B8>=
8=

'$!*-)$

0$'$)"
)0./-2
..4)
1

2
-

$-

0
'$/2
"(/

$./





0;
C7




M N
(74
>DAC
74;3
8=

C70C
%

3>4B
=>C
64=4A0;;H
A4@D8A4
;403
064=284B
C>
0=0;HI4
C74
8<?02CB
>5
039024=C
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
2>=38C8>=B
>=
0
?A>942C

0C
 


>F4E4A
C>
C74
4GC4=C
C70C
0
?A>942C
<0H
4G024A10C4

4G8BC8=6
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
2>=38C8>=B
0C
>A
=40A
0
?A>942C
B8C4
C7>B4
45542CB
F>D;3
BC8;;
70E4
C>
14
2>=B834A43
?DABD0=C
C>
%

0C


.M%
20;;B
D?>=
0=
064=2H
C>
4E0;D0C4
4G8BC8=6

2>=38C8>=B
8=
>A34A
C>
0BB4BB
F74C74A
0
?A>942C
2>D;3
4G024A10C4
70I0A3B
C70C
0A4
0;A403H
?A4B4=CN/

=
B>
7>;38=6
C74
>DAC
4G?A4BB;H
74;3
C70C
%PB
BC0CDC>AH
;0=6D064
A4@D8A4B
;403
064=284B
C>
38B2;>B4
0=3
0=0;HI4
M8<?02CB
>=
0
?A>942CPB
DB4AB
>A
A4B834=CB
C70C
0A8B4
5A><
C74
?A>942CPB
45542CB
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CN

0C
 



(74
20A28=>64=82
5>A<0;347H34
4<8BB8>=B
!A
#554A<0==
70B
834=C85843
0A4
=>C
0=
4G8BC8=6
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
2>=38C8>=
(7>B4
4<8BB8>=B
F8;;
14
5A><
C74
$A>942C
&4B834=C80;
C4=0=CB
F8;;
14
C74
$A>942CPB
DB4AB
DAA4=C;H
C74A4
8B
?A4BD<01;H
;8CC;4
C>
=>
5>A<0;347H34
4<8BB8>=B
0C
C74
B8C4
#=24
1D8;C
C74
$A>942C
F8;;
BC0AC
4<8CC8=6
5>A<0;347H34
0C
;4E4;B
?>B8=6
B86=85820=C
38A42C
0=3
2D<D;0C8E4
740;C7
A8B:B
C>
C74
$A>942CPB
DB4AB
(74
0;85>A=80
'D?A4<4
>DAC
8=

4G?A4BB;H
5>D=3
C70C
C78B
08A
4<8BB8>=
0=3
740;C7
8<?02C
5A><
C74
$A>942C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
0=3
0
M?A>942CPB
DB4AB
0=3
A4B834=CBN
<DBC
14
033A4BB43
D=34A
%



(74
0;85>A=80
'D?A4<4
>DACPB
A40B>=8=6
8B
F4;;6A>D=343
8=
%PB
BC0CDC>AH
;0=6D064
%
4G?A4BB;H
8=2;D34B
0
?A>942CPB
45542CB
>=
7D<0=
148=6B
0B
0=
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=C
C70C
<DBC
14
033A4BB43
8=
0=
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
A4E84F
M'42C8>=


1
PB
4G?A4BB

;0=6D064
5>A
4G0<?;4
A4@D8A4B
0
58=38=6
>5
0
OB86=85820=C
45542C
>=
C74
4=E8A>=<4=CP
J


1
F74=4E4A
C74
O4=E8A>=<4=C0;
45542CB
>5
0
?A>942C
F8;;
20DB4
BD1BC0=C80;
03E4AB4
45542CB
*)
#0(
)

$)".
48C74A
38A42C;H
>A
8=38A42C;HPN
 


0;
C7
0C

.4<?70B8B
8=
>A868=0;/

8:4F8B4
MC74
468B;0CDA4
70B
<034
2;40AL8=
342;0A0C8>=B
022><?0=H8=6
%PB
4=02C<4=CL
C70C
?D1;82
740;C7
0=3
B054CH
0A4
>5
6A40C
8<?>AC0=24
8=
C74
BC0CDC>AH
B274<4N

28C8=6
46
JJ


BD13B
1
2
3
6


BD13B
1
3

C
6>4B
F8C7>DC
B0H8=6
C70C
C74
$A>942CPB

5DCDA4
A4B834=CB
0=3
2><<4A280;
4<?;>H44B
0A4
7D<0=
148=6B
0=3
C748A
740;C7
0=3
B054CH
<DBC
14
BD1942C43
C>
%PB
B0546D0A3B



(74
8CH
70B
0
3DCH
C>
8=E4BC860C4
8BBD4B
A4;0C8=6
C>
0
?A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;
4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02CB

*0)/2

)$/
/$*)

$./
*

1
*0)/2
*!
 -)




0;??
C7





K
.M.)/=34A
%
C74
;403
064=2H
140AB
0
1DA34=
C>
8=E4BC860C4
?>C4=C80;
10 cont

A20380
(>F=
4=C4A
$A>942C

'&
><<4=C
>=
!8C860C43
"460C8E4
42;0A0C8>=


424<14A



$064


>5





4=E8A>=<4=C0;
8<?02CBN/
(74
$A>942C
F8;;
70E4
B86=85820=C
45542CB
>=
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
740;C7
A8B:B
1H
4<8CC8=6
5>A<0;347H34
C70C
F8;;
4G?>B4
5DCDA4
A4B834=CB
0=3
2><<4A280;
4<?;>H44B
C>
20=24A
A8B:B
4G24438=6
'%!PB
B86=85820=24
C7A4B7>;3
5>A
20=24A
A8B:
>5

?4A

<8;;8>=

=
;867C
>5
C78B
8<?02C
0=3
C74
8CHPB
;02:
>5
0=H
4E834=24
C>
C74
2>=CA0AH
C74
8CH
<DBC
?A4?0A4
0=

&
145>A4
0??A>E8=6
C74
$A>942C
C>
0=0;HI4
0=3
<8C860C4
C74B4
8<?02CB







B
38B2DBB43
01>E4
C74A4
8B
0
508A
0A6D<4=C
C70C
C74
$A>942C
<0H
70E4
B86=85820=C
03E4AB4
8<?02CB
>=
18>;>6820;
A4B>DA24B
=>8B4
08A
@D0;8CH
0=3
8=3>>A
08A
@D0;8CH
=
 &
8B
C74A45>A4

A4@D8A43
C>
0=0;HI4
0=3
<8C860C4
C74
$A>942CPB
?>C4=C80;;H
B86=85820=C
45542CB
(7DB
'&
A4B?42C5D;;H
A4@D4BCB
C70C
C74
8CH
=>C
A4;H
>=
C74
!"
0=3
8=BC403
?A4?0A4
0=3
28A2D;0C4
0=
 &

145>A4
5DAC74A
2>=B834A0C8>=
>5
C74
$A>942C










' 8 = 2 4 A 4 ; H 

0H;4H
)=>

#-)
&)&,
$

10 cont
11






1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616

Attn. Edwin Arreola, Senior Planner
City of Arcadia
Development Services Department
240 West Huntington Drive
Arcadia, California 91066 12 December 2024

RE: Arcadia Town Center

Dear Mr. Arreola,

I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources from the proposed Arcadia Town Center project, which I understand would add a five-story, 440,938 square-foot mixed-use building on 2.27 acres located on the corner of Huntington Dr. and N Santa Anita Ave. in Arcadia, CA. I comment on the analyses of impacts to biological resources in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (City of Arcadia 2024).

My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society and Raptor Research Foundation, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirty-seven years. My CV is attached.

SITE VISIT

On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master’s Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for 2.8 hours from 06:47 to 09:35 hours on 6 December 2024. She walked the site’s perimeter, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen nearby, off the site. Animals of uncertain species identity were either omitted or, if possible, recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.

Conditions were sunny with 3 MPH northeast wind and temperatures of 52-63° F. The site contains unoccupied office and commercial buildings and a parking lot, with multiple ornamental trees and shrubs (Photos 1-3).
12 13

2 Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Noriko saw Cooper’s hawk and peregrine falcon (Photos 3 and 4), Anna’s hummingbird (Photos 5 and 12), house finch and red-crowned parrot (Photos 6 and 7), American crow and black phoebe (Photos 8 and 9), acorn woodpecker (Photo 10), Allen’s hummingbird (Photo 11), western bluebird and yellow-rumped warbler (Photos 13 and 14), northern rough-winged swallow and California gull (Photos 15 and 16), mourning dove and band- tailed pigeon (Photos 17 and 18), northern mockingbird (Photos 19 and 20), eastern fox squirrel (Photo 21), among the other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 25 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including six species with special status (Table 1).

Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.

13 cont

3 Photos 3 and 4. Cooper’s hawk (left), and peregrine falcon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photo 5. Anna’s hummingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
13 cont

4 Photos 6 and 7. House finch (left) and red-crowned parrot (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 8 and 9. American crow with a piece of bread (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

13 cont

5 Photo 10. Acorn woodpeckers just off of the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 11 and 12. Allen’s hummingbird (left), and Anna’s hummingbird (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

13 cont

6 Photos 13 and 14. Western bluebird just off of the project site (left), and yellow- rumped warbler on the project site (right), 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 15 and 16. Northern rough-winged swallow (left), and California gull (right) on the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

13 cont

7 Photos 17 and 18. Mourning dove (left) and band-tailed pigeon (right) flying over the project site, 6 December 2024. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

Photos 19 and 20. Northern mockingbird on the project site, 6 December 2024.

Photos by Noriko Smallwood.

13 cont

8 Photo 21. Eastern fox squirrel just off the project site, 6 December 2024. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.

Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 2.8 hours of survey on 6 December 2024.

Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native Flew over
Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Flew over
Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Flew over
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna
Territorial; chased NRWS and
ALHU
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Perched and flew over California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL 3 flew over
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Chased BTPI on site Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just off site
Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Collected acorns Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just off site Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Flew over, perched nearby Red-crowned parrot Amazona viridigenalis Many
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Perched, foraged
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Many
Common raven Corvus corax Flew over
Northern rough-winged
swallow
Stelgidopteryx
serripennis Foraged, perched on site
13 cont

9 Common name Species name Status1 Notes
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged on site
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Just off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Perched
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Flock flew over Western bluebird Sialia mexicana Perched
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Perched, socialized
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata Foraged
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Scat
Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger Non-native Just off site 1 Listed as BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5).

The species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site comprised only a sampling of the species that were present during her survey. To demonstrate this, I fit a nonlinear regression model to Noriko’s cumulative number of vertebrate species detected with time into her survey to predict the number of species that she would have detected with a longer survey or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The model is a logistic growth model which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. In this case, the model fit to her survey predicts 50 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected during that morning, or twice the number of species she actually detected (Figure 1).

Unknown are the identities of those species Noriko missed, but the pattern in her data indicates relatively high use of the project site compared to 38 other south-coast sites she and I have surveyed in California. Noriko’s rate of detections of species at the project site tracked the 95% confidence interval estimated from other surveys in California’s south coast region (Figure 1). Importantly, however, the species Noriko did and did not detect on 6 December 2024 composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence.

At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.

However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km
2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to 13 cont
14

10 accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: ෠ =
ଵ
ଵ ௔ൗ ା௕×(ு௢௨௥௦)೎ , where ෠ represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to

1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.

Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate
wildlife species
detected and the
elapsed survey
time based on
Noriko’s visual-
scan surveys on
31 August and 1
September 2024.

I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 12.1 species over my first 2.8 hours of surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (2.8 hours to match the 2.8 hours Noriko surveyed at the project site), which composed 21.2% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 25 species Noriko detected after her 2.8 hours of survey at the project site likely represented 21.2% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
Model prediction
r2 = 0.98, loss = 21.9
95% CI of 38 visual-
scan surveys 2019-2024
Actual count of species
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
14 cont

11 would likely detect 25 0.212ൗ = 118 species of vertebrate wildlife at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 118 predicted species, then continued surveys would eventually detect 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.

Because my prediction of 118 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 28 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed to inventory the project site for wildlife. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.

Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, ෠, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015ࣣ2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.

EXISTING ENVIRNMENTAL SETTING

The IS/MND fails to complete the first step in analysis of potential project impacts to biological resources, which is to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, including the biological species that use the site. This first analytical step should also characterize the wildlife community that uses that portion of the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the project’s building. This appropriated airspace is habitat that would be lost to many species of birds, where avian habitat is defined by a species’ use of its environment (Hall et al. 1997), typically based on measurement (Smallwood 02 04 06 08 0 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
14 cont
15

12 2002). The gaseous atmosphere, or aerosphere, is habitat to many species. It is a principal medium of life to volant animals such as birds (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere. The aerosphere is habitat not just to volant wildlife that fly through it, but to any and every animal that breaths air.

Indeed, an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008). The aerosphere is part of the existing environmental setting, and it needs to be characterized as such in CEQA review.

The IS/MND makes no mention of the aerosphere, let alone which species of birds might use it.

To achieve the CEQA’s primary objective to disclose potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, the analysis should identify which biological species are known to occur at the proposed project site, which special-status species are likely to occur, and the limitations of the survey effort directed to the site. Analysts need this information to characterize the environmental setting as a basis for opining on, or predicting, potential project impacts to biological resources. However, the IS/MND provides neither the results of a field survey to detect species of wildlife nor of a desktop review to identify occurrence records of special-status species in the project area.

Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys

No surveys for birds were completed at the project site. Surveys are needed to characterize bird flights during both day and night, and the bird flights need to be further attributed by species, heights above ground, flight directions, and specific flight behaviors. The lack of surveys leaves the City of Arcadia blind to any potential project impacts to birds, because without a survey there is no sound basis for characterizing the existing environmental setting. Going forward with the project without completing appropriate avian surveys would be indefensible, and doing so could result in high costs to birds and to the building’s owner if windows require retrofits or window glass needs to be marked for visibility post-construction (see below, under Bird-Window Collisions).

The IS/MND reports that the site supports 26 trees, but only three of which are protected by City Code. However, the IS/MND fails to report the importance of the site’s trees to birds. The trees on site serve to expand the vertical structural available to birds on the adjoining County Park and golf course, the combination of which composes a considerable open space within an expansive urbanized landscape. The trees on the project site effectively add open space to birds.

Of Noriko Smallwood’s 130 observations of birds in flight during her survey, 38 were headed to or from trees on the project site. House finches, yellow-rumped warblers and red-crowned parrots flew to and from the palm trees located in the middle of the site. An Allen’s hummingbird and an Anna’s hummingbird flew back and forth to other trees in the middle of the site. All of these and more observations should have been made by wildlife biologists sent to the project site by the City of Arcadia. 15 cont

13 Noriko saw 17 species flying through the airspace of the project site, and all these flying birds were within the height domain of the proposed building. Of the flying birds, 44% were within 30 feet of the ground, and 93% were within 60 feet of the ground. Three of the birds circled over the site (including the peregrine falcon), while 38 were headed west, 30 east, 35 north, and 21 south. Unknown, however, are the numbers of birds, their heights above ground, behaviors, and their bearings in other seasons or at night.

These details matter because they can affect collision rates with the building’s windows, and whether the building can be designed to minimize collisions.

Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review

The purpose of literature and database reviews and of consulting with local experts is to inform the field survey, and to augment interpretation of its outcome. Analysts need this information to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the project site, and to identify which other special-status species could conceivably occur at the site due to geographic range overlap and migration flight paths.

The IS/MND includes no desktop review to assess avian species’ occurrence likelihoods in or near the airspace that would be appropriated by the proposed project. The lack of a desktop review for avian flight paths and for special-status species likely to occur at the project site leaves the City of Arcadia uninformed of and unprepared for potential project impacts to birds. It also fails to publicly disclose potential impacts to birds.

In my assessment based on database review, 77 special-status species of birds are known to occur near enough to the project site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Members of these 77 species can fly within the aerosphere of the project site and would be vulnerable to collision with the building or with loss of energy caused by the need to circumnavigate the building. Of these 77 special-status species, 6 (8%) have been documented on or just next to the project site, 45 (58%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), 11 (14%) within 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 14 (18%) within 4 to 30 miles (In region). Most (80.5%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the site’s airspace carries considerable potential for supporting the travels of many special-status species of birds based on proximity of recorded occurrences.

15 cont
16

14 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status bird species at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko.

Common name

Species name

Status1
Data base
records,
Site visits
Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Very close
Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SSC In region
Blainville’s horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC Nearby San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Fulvous whistling-duck Dendrocygna bicolor SSC1 In region Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC Nearby
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Very close Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC On site
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC Very close
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL On site
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
CFP Nearby
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP Very close
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,

BOP, WL
Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP On site
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close 16 cont

15 Common name

Species name

Status1
Data base
records,
Site visits
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Just offsite
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Very close
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Very close
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, SSC2, BOP,
CCE
Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP Nearby
Northern pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma BOP Nearby
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC Very close
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Just offsite American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close
Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP On site
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Nearby
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Very close
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Very close
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Very close
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Very close
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 Nearby
Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Very close Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Very close
16 cont

16 Common name

Species name

Status1
Data base
records,
Site visits
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Very close
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Very close Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC Very close Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC In region
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Yellow warbler Setophaga petechia SSC2 Very close
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Very close
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG:M In region
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In range
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In range
Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In range
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M Nearby
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H In range Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In range Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H In range
Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In range
Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range 1 Listed as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered, FC = federal candidate for listing, BCC = U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern, CT or CE = California threatened or endangered, CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered, CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511), SSC = California Species of Special Concern (not threatened with extinction, but rare, very restricted in range, declining throughout range, peripheral portion of species' range, associated with habitat that is declining in extent), SSC1, SSC2 and SSC3 = California Bird Species of Special Concern priorities 1, 2 and 3, respectively (Shuford and Gardali 2008), WL = Taxa to Watch List (Shuford and Gardali 2008), and BOP = Birds of Prey (CFG Code 3503.5), and WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H).

Because the project would consist of a mid-rise building with many windows, avian use of the local aerosphere should be of principal concern. Of the available records of tracked birds, 2,585 birds of 117 species have been recorded flying into the Los Angeles Metropolitan area from 18 countries of the Americas, from as far away as Argentina, 16 cont

17 Bahamas, and Canada (https://explorer.audubon.org/explore/locations/ MYSwLgngvAMg9gZwAQEEB2BzApgGywgbgCcsMQ40oBhFA4OAVzTCOgFUBlWnAQ zCgDMAFgB0ABgCsAiQHYCOClAC0ARhUAOEQCYhE3UA/connections?locationAddr ess=Los+Angeles%2C+California&y=2403411.3245877805&x=2517121.9601057805&zo om=7&legend=expand&layersPanel=expand). According to BirdCast, which detects flying birds via radar, nearly 794,000 birds were in flight over Los Angeles County during the night of 28 April 2024. I am unable to locate the major pathways of these flights, but Terrill et al. (2021) found up to 13,500 birds per morning1 flying low through Bear Divide. Headed to and from Bear Divide, these birds would have been similarly channeled by terrain in and around the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area.

More than 11 million birds flew across Los Angeles County through the 2024 spring migration by the time of this writing (https://dashboard.birdcast.info/region/US-CA- 037). Bird flights across Los Angeles averaged 107,539 flights per night in spring 2024.

Most of these flights ranged in height from 100 feet to 10,000 feet above ground. I am unaware of the distribution of flight heights of birds crossing the City of Arcadia, but at a nearby study site (Coachella Valley), McCrary et al. (1982) detected 12.9% of nocturnally migrating birds below 100 m altitude, which corresponds with the heights of the proposed building of either option. Assuming this percentage also applies to birds flying across the aerosphere overlying the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area including Arcadia, then migratory flights documented by BirdCast would average 13,873 birds per night to be flying in the dark and within the height domain of the proposed building. That 13,500 birds per night were documented flying through the Bear Divide during peak migration likely attests to considerable uncertainty in the BirdCast data. Such uncertainty should be treated in a manner that is consistent with the precautionary principle in risk assessment. The BirdCast data might be missing many of the migratory birds that fly low due to ground clutter.
2 Ground clutter in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area comes in the forms of buildings and trees. In summary, the basis exists for concern that a large number of birds might routinely fly through the aerosphere that would be appropriated by the proposed building. Potential collision impacts from this project are addressed below, under the heading Bird-Window Collisions.

Hundreds of thousands of birds migrate along the Pacific Flyway, which includes the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. At least 77 special-status species of bird are known to the project area (Table 2). According to the scientific literature, many of the special- status species in Table 2 have been documented as window collision fatalities and are therefore susceptible to new structural glass installations (Supplemental Material to Basilio et al. 2020; Smallwood unpublished review). Many more species of migratory birds, protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, have also been documented as window collision victims (Basilio et al. 2020).

Surveys by qualified behavioral ecologists are needed to characterize bird flight activity in the project area. A desktop review is also needed to identify the special-status species

1 Morning flights are regarded as continuation of nocturnal flights into daylight hours. 2 Ground clutter generates solid radar echoes that hide the echoes of individual birds. 16 cont

18 of birds most at risk of encountering the building while flying through the area. The analysis should provide guidance to the orientation and design of the building. Also, it should provide guidance to mitigation measures.

Based on Noriko Smallwood’s brief survey of the site for vertebrate wildlife, and based on my cursory desktop review for the potential of special-status species of wildlife to occur at the site, there is at least a fair argument to be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community of the project site.

BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT

Accurate characterization of the existing environmental setting is an essential foundation for analysis of potential project impacts, but the IS/MND provides no foundation for an impacts analysis. An impacts analysis should consider whether and how the proposed project would affect members of each potentially occurring special- status species and of each species of bird likely to attempt to fly through the airspace of the project. In the following, I analyze impacts likely to result from the project but which are not addressed in the IS/MND.

INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT

One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, the IS/MND includes no analysis of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. The project would insert a midrise building into the airspace that has been used by birds on migration, dispersal, home range patrol and foraging over millions of years. This building would obviously interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Noriko Smallwood observed and photographed birds flying through the airspace of the project site. A fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project’s potential impacts to volant wildlife and how those impacts to movement can be mitigated.

BIRD-WINDOW COLLISIONS

The project would add a 5-story mixed-use building, which would expose the birds of Arcadia to many windows composing the building’s facades. Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.

Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but these façades are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 16 cont
17 18

19 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.

Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the bird- window collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.

By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA bird- window fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only 2 of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.

In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend 18 cont

20 to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.

Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants (Van Doren et al. 2021) as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities).

Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days. Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo- Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors.

There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.

Project Impact Prediction

By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m 2 of glass per
year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m
2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.

18 cont

21 The IS/MND does not disclose the extent of glass windows on the proposed new building. I therefore measured the extents of windows depicted in the IS/MND’s schematics of the building, though in doing so I omitted measurement of the glass railings. I adjusted my measured extent of exterior glass for the exterior glass that was either not visible or only obliquely visible on façades of interior spaces such as around the courtyard and within projections of the building My adjustment was 50%, which was conservative. With this adjustment, I estimate the project would include 2,966 m 2 of
exterior glass windows. Applying the mean fatality rate (above) to my estimates of glass in either project, I predict annual bird deaths of 217 (95% CI: 129௅305).

The vast majority of bird-window collision deaths would be of birds protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the potential impacts of bird-window collisions that might be caused by the project.

TRAFFIC IMPACTS TO WILDLIFE

The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts to wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic.

Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 22ȸ25), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).

Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.

18 cont
19

22 Photo 22. A white-tailed
antelope squirrel runs across the
road just in the Coachella Valley,
26 May 2022. Such road
crossings are usually successful,
but too often prove fatal to the
animal.

Photo 23. A coyote uses the
crosswalk to cross a road on 2
February 2023. Not all drivers
stop, nor do all animals use the
crosswalk. Too often, animals
are injured or killed when they
attempt to cross roads.

Photos 24 and 25. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and mourning dove killed by vehicle on a California road (right; photo by Noriko Smallwood, 21 June 2020.)

The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study 19 cont

23 found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.

An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.

For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the time period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.

Predicting project-generated traffic impacts to wildlife

The IS/MND predicts 1,302,015 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality. This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 554 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic. However, compared to the study area of Mendelsohn et al. (2009), fewer animals would be killed in the urbanized part of Arcadia that surrounds the project site, so an adjustment is warranted. Assuming that the number of wild animals encountered by project-generated traffic would be only 30% of the number of animals encountered by traffic in the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, the annual death toll to wildlife resulting from project- generated traffic would be 166. Even this assumed lower mortality would qualify as a 19 cont

24 significant impact, and based on my review of the available documents, it would not be mitigated.

Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts to wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts.

At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the impact of wildlife-automobile collisions resulting from project-generated traffic.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The IS’MND’s analysis of potential project contributions to cumulative impacts is flawed. According to the IS/MND (p. 3-114), “All reasonably foreseeable future development in the City would be subject to the same land use and environmental regulations that have been described throughout this document. … all development projects are guided by the policies identified in the City’s General Plan and by the regulations established in the Development Code and AMC. Therefore, compliance with applicable land use and environmental regulations and implementation of the mitigation program would ensure that environmental effects associated with the proposed Project would not combine with effects from reasonably foreseeable future development in the City to cause cumulatively considerable significant impacts.” However, according to the CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3), “a project’s incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area of the project.” The IS/MND cites no specific requirements that would substantially lessen cumulative impacts to wildlife in the area. The CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3) futher state, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND provides no explanation of how implementing particular requirements of the City’s General Plan would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts to wildlife.

To measure the impacts of habitat loss and cumulative impacts to wildlife caused by development projects that had to comply with existing policies and regulations, Noriko Smallwood and I measured the impacts of habitat loss to wildlife caused by mitigated development projects. We revisited 80 sites of proposed projects that we had originally surveyed in support of comments on CEQA review documents (Smallwood and Smallwood 2023). We revisited the sites to repeat the survey methods at the same time 19 cont
20

25 of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration in order to measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. We found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures per existing policies and regulations. We also specifically tested for the effects of projects to wildlife in neighboring habitats, and found significant decreases in species richness and overall abundance in those areas as well.

The project would insert a glass-covered midrise building into the airspace that has been used by volant wildlife for millions of years to travel across the Los Angeles Basin. The project would further fragment aerial habitat of volant wildlife, and this would contribute cumulatively to other similar impacts caused by other midrise and high-rise buildings in the area. The project would also cause a predicted 217 (95% CI: 129௅305) bird-window collision fatalities. Additionally, the project would generate a predicted annual VMT of 1,302,015, which would contribute 166 to 554 wildlife-automobile collision fatalities to the cumulative annual mortality already underway in Arcadia and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. A cumulative impacts analysis needs to be completed.

MITIGATION MEASURES

The IS/MND summarizes three measures to mitigate potential project impacts to wildlife, but these measures are incomplete and inadequate. Below my comments on these measures are my recommendations for mitigation that should be considered in an EIR.

RR BIO-1: If vegetation clearing occurs during the peak nesting season (between February 1 and August 31), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify if there are any active nesting locations. ... If the biologist finds an active nest within the construction area and determines that the nest may be impacted by construction activities, the biologist will delineate an appropriate buffer zone around the nest depending on the species and the type of construction activity.

Construction activities shall be prohibited in the buffer zone until a qualified biologist determines the nest is abandoned.

Whereas a preconstruction nesting bird survey should be completed, it needs to be understood that a preconstruction survey unlikely to achieve much of any conservation 20 cont
21

26 benefit to birds, and the IS/MND – like all other CEQA review documents I have read – cites no evidence of efficacy. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. These types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season, whereas preconstruction surveys take place only once and not necessarily at the optimal time for detecting nesting by birds. The biologists conducting the preconstruction survey would be very lucky to find any of the bird nests that are available to be found at the time of the survey.

One reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because species of bird vary in their nest phenology within what is generally understand as the avian breeding season. Whereas, as examples (and not suggesting these particular species occur at the project site), killdeer begin nesting in mid-March, western meadowlarks begin in late April, burrowing owls usually begin in May, and American goldfinches do not nest until July-August. Whenever the preconstruction survey is conducted, the biologists conducting the survey would be searching only for the nests of the birds that happen to be breeding at the time, and would miss the nests begun between the survey and the start of construction. On the project site, this task would be further complicated by the size of the site, by its terrain, and by its diversity of vegetation communities.

Another reason why preconstruction surveys achieve very little is because the nests they might salvage are only the nests of the year. Preconstruction surveys can do nothing to mitigate the loss of productive capacity that ensues construction. All subsequent years of productivity would be destroyed by the project regardless of the success of a preconstruction survey.

Lastly, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.

RR BIO-2: … the Project Applicant/Property Owner shall obtain permits from the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for the removal and planting of Protected trees and street trees in the public right-of-way associated with the Project. …

The obtaining of a necessary permit is not a legitimate mitigation measure, as it does not necessarily avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts.

RR BIO-3: The Project Applicant/Property Owner shall submit the Project’s landscape plans, which will include the proposed locations and species of replacement street trees, to the Arcadia Public Works Services Department for review. Street tree species will consist of those set forth in the City’s Street Tree Master Plan.

This measure defers its own formulation to an unspecified later date that arrives after the public has had the opportunity to participate with the environmental review of the 21 cont

27 project. It fails to suggest that any of the landscaping would be intended to benefit wildlife.

RECOMMENDED MEASURES

Guidelines on Building Design to Minimize Bird-Window Collisions: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.

New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015).

Van Doren et al. (2021) found that nocturnal migrants contributed most of the collision fatalities in their study, and the largest predictors of fatalities were peak migration and lit windows. Van Doren et al. (2021) predicted that a light-out mitigation measure could reduce bird-window collision mortality by 60%.

Monitoring and the use of compensatory mitigation should be incorporated at any new building project because the measures recommended in the available guidelines remain of uncertain efficacy, and even if these measures are effective, they will not reduce 21 cont
22

28 collision fatalities to zero. The only way to assess mitigation efficacy and to quantify post-construction fatalities is to monitor the project for fatalities.

The City of Arcadia should also follow the examples of other major cities and formulate its own mitigation guidelines for analysis of potential impacts and for mitigating those impacts.

Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by bird-window collisions and the project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).

Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation ought to include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured by collisions with the building’s windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the building.

Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as importance sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threated insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022). Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.

Thank you for your consideration,

______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.

22 cont

29 LITERATURE CITED

Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667

Basilio, L. G., D. J. Moreno, and A, J. Piratelli. 2020. Main causes of bird-window collisions: a review. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 92(1): e20180745 DOI 10.1590/0001-3765202020180745.

Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.

Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.

Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401

Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.

Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.

J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211

City of Arcadia. 2024. Arcadia Town Center Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by Psomas.

City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.

Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring. Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.

Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129

30 Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.

Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.

Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.

Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.

Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.

Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347

Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.

Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.

Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371

Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. “The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.

Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.

Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.

Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.

Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.

Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.

Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.

Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.

31 Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.

Klem, D. Jr., C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb and P. G. Saenger. 2009.

Architectural and Landscape Risk Factors Associated with Bird-Glass Collisions in an Urban Environment. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:126-134.

Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.

P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.

Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:

Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.

Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.

Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164

Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206

McCrary, M. D., R. L. McKernan, R. E. Landry, W. D. Wagner, and R. W. Schreiber. 1982. Nocturnal avian migration assessment of the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study Area, Spring 1982. Report to Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, CA.

Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.

Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.

PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652

O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.