Aesthetics

4.
1 Aesthetics
4.1 AESTHETICS
This section describes existing aesthetic and visual resources of the Specific Plan Area. In particular,
descriptions of existing visual characteristics, both on and in the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, are
presented, and potential project-related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light
and glare or impacts to scenic views, are evaluated based on analyses of photographs, site reconnaissance,
and project data.
Data used for this section were obtained from various sources, including site photographs taken by
EIP Associates, visual simulations provided by the Applicant (as contained in The Shops at Santa Anita
Park Draft Architectural Design Review, August 2006), The Shops at Santa Anita Park Draft Design
Guidelines (August 2006), the City of Arcadia General Plan (General Plan) (City of Arcadia 1996) and
associated EIR, previous environmental documentation and feasibility studies prepared for the project
site, and other data sources. Bibliographic entries for selected reference materials are provided in
Section 4.1.5 (References) of this section. Reference materials also include the appendices to this EIR.
4.1.1 Environmental Setting
City of Arcadia
Architectural landmarks and world-renowned institutions and events have contributed to Arcadia’s
evolution as a regional economic, cultural, and educational center. Historic character and environment,
including distinct residential neighborhoods, strongly define the City, and Citywide design principles
blend aspects of new development (e.g., scale, appropriateness of style, and materials used) and modern
technology (e.g., seismic retrofits, updated and more efficient utility and energy systems) with older,
historically and architecturally significant structures and features. In addition, safe, well-designed, and
accessible areas are important components of Arcadia’s planning of neighborhood parks, recreational
facilities, open spaces, and public and private institutions.
Specific Plan Area Characteristics
Project Location and Boundaries
Santa Anita Park is situated at 285 West Huntington Drive in the City of Arcadia, near the base of the San
Gabriel Mountains. The Specific Plan Area, which occupies approximately 304 acres within the City, is
bounded on the south and east by Huntington Drive, on the west by Baldwin Avenue and Westfield Santa
Anita, and on the north by Colorado Place and the “College Tract” single-family residential
neighborhood.
The majority of the proposed development would occur within an 85-acre commercial entertainment
(CE) zone that generally occupies the surface parking lot south of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand, as
The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-1

Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis
well as within the Paddock Gardens and a portion of the west wing of the Grandstand, which are located
in the S-1 zone. Some improvements associated with access, parking, and infrastructure would occur
throughout the remainder of the Specific Plan Area, as well as off site, to support the development. No
residential development is proposed on the Specific Plan site.
Building Description and History
Santa Anita Park opened in 1934, and has become widely known for its history and architecture. The
Grandstand structure was designed by Gordon Kaufmann, architect of the Hoover Dam, and is
considered an eclectic example of the art deco style that blends Streamline Moderne with American
Colonial, Spanish Revival, and New Orleans styles. The Racetrack is an elliptical Thoroughbred
racetrack with a Grandstand roof structure supported by lighter-weight steel frame construction. Seating
risers and supporting columns are constructed of concrete, as is the wall at the south face of the
Grandstand. Other existing structures within the Specific Plan Area include the Saddling Barn and the
Kingsbury Memorial Fountain, both located within the Paddock Gardens; entrance gates on the southern
and eastern sides of the Paddock Gardens; stables and associated structures on the western portion of the
Specific Plan Area; and an old winery building and the property manager’s residence, known as the Track
House, on the northwestern slope of the Specific Plan Area. Another single-family house, known as the
Chillingsworth House, is located to the north of the track. Santa Anita Park is a key community feature,
and an important component of Arcadia’s character.
Refer to Section 4.4 (Cultural Resources) for a more detailed discussion of the history of the project site,
as well as photographs of the significant structures on the site.
Architecture and Design
The Specific Plan Area includes the Grandstand, which has several decorative features, as illustrated in
Figure 4.1-1 (Architectural Details of the Grandstand). The southern façade of the Grandstand consists of
eclectic, green-painted architecture with decorative windows, green-and-white-striped awnings, and
painted metal friezes, which extend across most of the façade, depicting horse racing vignettes.
A metal fence encloses the Racetrack, interrupted by various entrance gates for horses, jockeys,
employees, horse trailers, and emergency vehicles. The San Gabriel Mountains are visible through the
fence and backdrop landscaping. This backdrop of the mountains frames the view of both the Racetrack
and Grandstand. In addition, a view of the mountains is available from the infield. In contrast to the
architectural and design features of the Grandstand, no particular design is associated specifically with the
proposed CE zone, as it generally consists of a paved, surface parking area dotted with sparse ornamental
landscaping.
4.1-2 City of Arcadia

NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Source: EIP Associates, A Division of PBSJ, 2006.
FIGURE 4.1-1
Architectural Details of the Grandstand
A Division of
D21007.00 City of Arcadia
4.1 Aesthetics
Vegetation/Landscaping
In addition to the historically significant architecture and design, Santa Anita Park is characterized by
green lawns and gardens set against the backdrop of the mountains. Existing vegetation on the exterior of
the Racetrack consists of landscaped, ruderal, and ornamental vegetation, including numerous planted
trees and rosebushes. Ornamental vegetation consists of species of maple, palm, floss silk, and pepper
trees, and a variety of native and introduced plant species, including juniper, wild cucumber, star thistle,
mustard, acacia, and English ivy.
Vegetation in the CE zone is limited to ornamental palm trees, primarily Mexican fan palms, and
shrubbery scattered throughout the surface parking lot. Perimeter plantings surrounding the Specific
Plan Area on the east and southeast include a variety of species of large, mature trees. In addition, large,
mature trees are located in the landscaped median and public rights of way of Huntington Drive. Within
the Paddock Gardens, vegetation consists of landscaped plazas and mature trees surrounding the walking
ring, and flanking the path leading from the east ticket gates to the walking circle.
Glare/Lighting
Currently, minimal glare is associated with the Specific Plan Area, as the Specific Plan Area is developed
with only the Racetrack, limited related structures, and surface parking lots, none of which use glass or
other reflective materials. In fact, the Grandstand structure was originally painted its green color in
order to reduce glare. While cars in the existing parking lot could create glare, the primary source of
glare in the area is sunlight reflected by the planes of building surfaces composed of glass or other
reflective material—examples include Methodist Hospital and adjacent medical office building.
Ambient nighttime lighting in the Specific Plan Area is characteristic of areas proximate to major
commercial and recreational centers. Light sources include vehicular lights, street lighting, outdoor
signage, and area lighting associated with the Racetrack and adjacent mall. Light sources within the
Specific Plan Area are limited to the Racetrack, Paddock Gardens, and stables area, as well as two lights
in the southern parking area, just south of the Paddock Gardens. In addition, one light pole is located in
Parking Area A, just north and east of the north ticket gate, and one light pole is located in Parking Area
V. Lighted signs are also present at major entryways, particularly the upper “Y” at Colorado Place and
Huntington Drive, and Gate 8 on Baldwin Avenue. No lighting is provided in Parking Area B. The
southern parking lot, including the proposed 85-acre CE zone, experiences minimal nighttime lighting,
the majority of which is provided by vehicles and street lights on Huntington Drive, and overspill from
Methodist Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, and the Racetrack and Paddock Gardens.

Adjacent Land Uses
Surrounding Land Uses
The Specific Plan Area is surrounded by existing urban development, as illustrated by Figure 3-5
(Surrounding Land Uses). Surrounding land uses to the north of the Specific Plan Area include the
“College Tract,” a single-family residential neighborhood, and Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) north of
the College Tract. Additional single-family residential uses, a church (Santa Anita Church), a private
elementary school (Barnhart School), hotel/motel uses, and senior housing are also located to the
northeast. Land uses to the northwest include the Los Angeles County Arboretum, across Baldwin
Avenue. Westfield Santa Anita, a super-regional enclosed shopping mall about 85 feet tall, is located
immediately west of the Specific Plan Area, along with Fire Station No. 106. The Baldwin Avenue
commercial area and single- and multiple-family residences are situated to the southwest and west, while
multiple-family residences, senior condominiums, a convalescent home, and the Holy Angels Church and
Holy Angels School are located to the south. The Arcadia City Hall, Police Headquarters, Civic Center
Athletic Field, Arcadia County Park and Santa Anita Golf Course, and Downtown commercial district
are located to the east, and the Arcadia Historical Museum, Chamber of Commerce, Community
Center, and Methodist Hospital and associated medical offices, a daycare facility, and parking are located
to the southeast. In addition, multi-family residential units are located along Huntington Drive to the
south and southwest of the Specific Plan Area. The residential neighborhoods surrounding Santa Anita
Park to the northwest and northeast are primarily zoned single-family residential, with some multi-
family residential along Baldwin Avenue to the west and Huntington Drive to the south. In general, given
the surrounding uses described above, the immediate vicinity can be characterized as relatively tall
buildings (approximately 80 feet) located to the west, with smaller scale buildings located to the north
and south and east.
Existing Viewsheds
A viewshed is a geographic area composed of land, water, biotic, or cultural elements that may be seen
from one or more viewpoints and that has inherent scenic qualities or aesthetic values determined by
those who view it. The viewsheds associated with the Specific Plan Area are characterized by natural and
man-made features, particularly the historical architecture associated with the Grandstand, the Racetrack
itself, and the mountains to the north. The Grandstand is visible from the public buildings and streets
adjacent to the site, as well as from the residential and commercial uses to the south, east, and north. The
discussion below provides more detailed descriptions of existing views from, of, and through the Specific
Plan Area.
Views from the Specific Plan Area
As the Specific Plan Area is predominantly flat or very gently sloped and is surrounded by development,
views from the Specific Plan Area generally consist of the uses in the immediate vicinity. Views to the
west, south, and east consist primarily of adjacent developed uses of varying scale, including residential,

4.1 Aesthetics
commercial, institutional, and public uses. Views from the Specific Plan Area to the north are dominated
by the Grandstand, the mountains, or both, depending upon where within the Specific Plan Area the
viewer is located. In particular, views to the north that originate from the southern portion of the
Specific Plan Area are generally dominated by the Grandstand, with the mountains forming the
background of the view; views to the north that originate north of the Grandstand are primarily
composed of the mountains.
Views of and through the Specific Plan Area
The existing Grandstand structure and Westfield Santa Anita currently block some views of and through
the Specific Plan Area. In particular, views of the Specific Plan Area originating from the west are
blocked by Westfield Santa Anita, although views of the Specific Plan Area are accessible from the east.
Expansive views of the Grandstand are available along Colorado Boulevard and from distant locations to
the north.
The proposed CE zone, where the majority of structural development would occur, would be screened
from the north and west by the Grandstand structure and by Westfield Santa Anita, respectively. Existing
development blocks views from the residential areas north of the site and from Baldwin Avenue to the
west of the site as a result of the existing height of the Grandstand and the Westfield Santa Anita mall.
Due to the limited availability of views from the north and west, and the importance of views from the
south and east, according to the General Plan, the views that are analyzed within this section are those
from the south and east. The particular views from the southeast and east are described in the City’s
1996 General Plan as “key views which merit preservation.” The locations of key photographic
viewpoints of Santa Anita Park that provide the basis for this analysis are presented in Figure 4.1-2 (View
Corridors Key Map) and described below.
Views from the South, Looking Northeast (Viewshed A)
The proposed CE zone, where the proposed commercial development would be constructed, is visible
from the adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial uses to the south and southwest of the site,
as well as from vehicles traveling along West Huntington Drive. The most representative view of the
Grandstand from the south/southwest is located along West Huntington Drive, west of Holly Street and
just east of the Westfield Santa Anita, as shown in Figure 4.1-3 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed A). In this
area, foreground views are dominated by a large, paved surface parking area. Middle-ground views
consist of the recent addition to Westfield Santa Anita, the sweep of the entire southern façade of the
Grandstand, and associated ornamental landscaping, particularly Mexican fan palms, but also the
canopies of mature trees in and around the Paddock Gardens. Background views are primarily composed
of the upper portions and ridgelines of the mountains, and include sweeping views of the ridgelines.

Co
lor
ad
oP
l
nta
Saan Dr
Ju
Ce
nt
en
C nia
Westfield lW
ay
B
A
Holly Ave
LEGEND
SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA BOUNDARY
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Sources: Microsoft Streets and Trips, Basemap, 2006; EIP Associates, A Division of PBSJ, 2006.
FIGURE 4.1-2
View Corridors Key Map
A Division of
Current view from Huntington Drive looking northeast
Future view from Huntington Drive looking northeast

NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
Source: Elkus/Manfredi Architects LTD, 2006.
FIGURE 4.1-3
Visual Simulation–Viewshed A
A Division of
4.1 Aesthetics
Views from the South, Looking Northwest (Viewshed B)
Another clear view of the Specific Plan Area from the south is available from the intersection of West
Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue, particularly from vehicles traveling north on Holly Avenue. For
vehicles and pedestrians traveling east on Huntington Drive, Viewshed B serves as the end of a view
corridor that began at Viewshed A. As shown in Figure 4.1-4 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed B),
foreground views from this location are dominated by the wide, palm tree-lined Holly Avenue entrance
to Santa Anita Park, as well as the shrubs east and west of the entry monuments. Middle-ground views
consist of the central and eastern portions of the southern façade of the Grandstand, and associated
ornamental landscaping. Except for the roof of the Grandstand, middle-ground views of the southern
façade, to the west of Holly Avenue, are obscured from view by the existing landscaping from this
location, and the mature palm trees obscure the eastern portion of the Grandstand, though intermittent
views are available. The upper portions and ridgelines of the mountains dominate background views
from this location.
Views from the Southeast, Looking Northwest (Viewshed C)
The Specific Plan Area is visible from the adjacent commercial and public uses to the southeast of the
site, as well as from vehicles traveling northwest along Centennial Way. As shown in Figure 4.1-5
(Visual Simulation—Viewshed C), foreground views from Centennial Way are dominated by ornamental
landscaping and planters lining Centennial Way. Middle-ground views consist of the eastern portion of
the Grandstand, primarily the clubhouse component, as well as the circulation areas just east of the
Grandstand. Limited background views are afforded from this location, which include the upper portions
and ridgelines of the mountains; no other views of areas to the north are provided from this vantage
point.
Views from the Northeast, Looking Southwest (Viewshed D)
The Specific Plan Area is visible from the adjacent commercial retail and office uses to the northeast of
the site, as well as from vehicles traveling south along West Huntington Drive, near Colorado Place. As
shown in Figure 4.1-6 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed D), this intersection, which is also referred to as
the upper “Y,” affords the first views of the Grandstand for those approaching Santa Anita Park from the
east. Foreground views from these locations are dominated by the Santa Anita Park entrance and
associated sign and ornamental landscaping at the upper “Y,” northeast of Santa Anita Park. Middle-
ground views consist of the Grandstand. Background views include the mature trees and other vegetation
on the northwest slope of the Specific Plan Area, as well as along Baldwin Avenue at the northwestern
portion of the Specific Plan Area and in the vicinity of the Arboretum.

4.1.2 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal statutes related to aesthetics that would apply to the proposed project.
State
California’s Scenic Highway Program preserves and protects scenic highway corridors from changes that
would diminish their aesthetic value. The nearest scenic highway to the Specific Plan Area is the Angeles
Crest Highway (State Route 2), located approximately 10 miles to the north and northwest of the
Specific Plan Area. At the time of preparation of this document, there are no designated or proposed
scenic highways located within the City of Arcadia (Caltrans 2006).
Local
The City of Arcadia General Plan, Community Development Element, includes a discussion of Community
Design elements within the Specific Plan Area on pages 2-19 through 2-20, including key views that
merit preservation. These views are indicated as Viewpoints A, B, and D on Figure 4.1-2 (View
Corridors Key Map) of this document. Although the City’s General Plan does not identify Viewshed C as
a key view, it is included in this EIR due to its prominence as a major entry point to the Specific Plan
Area. As discussed above and summarized in the General Plan, Viewpoints A, B, and D include the first
views of the Grandstand that travelers experience from Huntington Drive/Colorado Place, directly east
of the track (Gate 5), and views of the unique architecture of the southerly Grandstand façade,
particularly those of architectural details toward the central and easterly portion of the Grandstand. The
General Plan states that views of these key architectural details from locations along Huntington Drive
should be preserved. Implementation of the proposed project would include General Plan Amendments
(GPAs) that would change this requirement; however, neither these amendments nor the project would
reduce the importance of these views because they are still considered focal views for the purposes of the
aesthetics analysis in this EIR. In addition, while there are no adopted aesthetic policies, the City would
provide design review of the proposed project, which would consider architectural quality and
compatibility with existing structures.
4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Analytic Method
The analysis of visual impacts focuses on the nature and magnitude of changes to the visual character of
the Specific Plan Area as a result of the proposed project, such as the visual compatibility of the proposed
development with the Grandstand and adjacent uses, vantage points where visual changes would be
evident, and the introduction of new sources of light and glare. Site visits by EIP personnel in 2005 and
2006 documented the existing visual character and context of the Specific Plan Area.

Current view from Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue looking northwest
Future view from Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue looking northwest
NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4.1-4
Visual Simulation–Viewshed B
A Division of
Current view from Centennial Drive looking northwest
Future view from Centennial Drive looking northwest

NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4.1-5
Visual Simulation–Viewshed C
A Division of
Current view from the “Y” looking southwest
Future view from the “Y” looking southwest

NORTH
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 4.1-6
Visual Simulation–Viewshed D
A Division of
4.1 Aesthetics
The basic unit of analysis of aesthetics and visual quality impacts in this EIR is the individual viewshed:
the analysis focuses primarily on comparing the existing visual characteristics of a particular viewshed,
the project elements that would be introduced into the viewshed (the proposed structural development,
in the south parking lot, the Simulcast Center in the Grandstand, the replacement Saddling Barn in the
Paddock Gardens, and signage), and the potential blockage by these structures of significant viewsheds.
In addition, the structures’ effect on the visual character of the project site and immediate surroundings
in terms of the compatibility of height, mass, and form with respect to structures on and adjacent to the
southern parking lot is also evaluated. Visual change that is compatible with existing patterns of
development with respect to height, massing, setbacks, and architecture or form would not be
considered a significant impact on the environment; a significant impact would occur where the proposed
project would introduce structures or elements that would be inconsistent with existing patterns of
development, thereby degrading the visual character or quality of the site, or creating substantial sources
of light or glare, or where documented and important scenic resources or scenic vistas would be
damaged or destroyed. Vantage points and associated view corridors were chosen for analysis based on
views considered significant in the General Plan‘s Community Development Chapter, as well as locations
of additional significant public views that could be affected by the proposed development. Significant
impacts to views would occur where documented and important scenic resources or scenic vistas would
be damaged or destroyed by the introduction of new structures.
Light and glare are considered for the project as a whole. The primary sources would be exterior lighting
associated with the commercial and office development, as well as security lighting in the parking areas;
the primary new source of glare would be the surfaces of the proposed commercial and office structures,
as well as the north façade of the Simulcast Center. A significant impact would occur where the project
would create a new, substantial source of light or glare.
Construction-related effects consider the general appearance and persistence of construction activities on
the project site and at off-site locations where project-related infrastructure improvements would be
implemented, particularly roadway intersections that would be improved as part of the traffic mitigation
program proposed in Section 4.13 (Transportation/Traffic) of this EIR.
Visual impacts with respect to historic views of Santa Anita Park are discussed in Section 4.4 (Cultural
Resources) of this EIR.
Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G to the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For
purposes of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project may have a significant adverse impact on
visual quality and aesthetics if it would do any of the following:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway

Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area
Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Threshold Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
The Specific Plan Area is not located within the viewshed or corridor of a state-designated scenic
highway. As described above under the Regulatory Framework, the nearest state-designated scenic
highway is located about 10 miles from the Specific Plan Area. Because the Specific Plan Area is neither
located proximate to a state-designated highway, nor within a designated view corridor associated with a
scenic highway, development of the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within
a state scenic highway view corridor, and no further analysis of this issue is required in this EIR.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a

substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas represented by
Viewpoints A and B. This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level, this impact would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Scenic vistas may be generally described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large
geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance) and focal views
(visual access to a particular object, scene, setting, or feature of interest). Panoramic views are typically
associated with vantage points that provide a sweeping geographic orientation not commonly available.
Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valleys, mountain ranges, or large bodies of water.
The Specific Plan Area, with large expanses of parking areas, is viewed from adjacent residential,
commercial, public, and recreational uses, as well as from portions of Huntington Drive, Holly Avenue,
Centennial Way, and Colorado Boulevard. Views of the upper portions and ridgelines of the San Gabriel
Mountains are available from surrounding land uses and streets to the south and southwest, looking
through or past the proposed CE zone, where major structural development would occur, and from
within the Specific Plan Area itself. Views of the mountains are considered to be panoramic views, as
they provide a backdrop to all views originating from the south and southwest in the vicinity of the
Specific Plan Area. These views, where available, generally constitute background views.

4.1 Aesthetics
No views of an urban skyline, valley, or large body of water are available from surrounding land uses, or
within the Specific Plan Area itself.
Focal views are typically associated with views of natural landforms, public art/signs, and visually
important structures that serve as discrete elements of visual interest. While there are no significant
natural landforms or public art/signs in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area, the majority of
proposed structural development within the Specific Plan Area would be located adjacent to and just
south of the visually prominent Santa Anita Park Grandstand. In addition, development of the Simulcast
Center would take place within the Grandstand; however, because these alterations would occur inside
the structure, the Simulcast Center would not affect focal views of the Grandstand from the south of the
Grandstand. The view of the northern façade of the Grandstand would be altered, and is discussed below
in Impact 4.1-2.
As noted in the Regulatory Framework discussion, the City’s General Plan, Community Development
Chapter, designates three key view corridors, indicated as Viewpoints A, B, and D in the following
analysis. In addition, the Centennial Way corridor (Viewpoint C) is considered in this analysis due to its
prominence as a major entry point to the Specific Plan Area.
The following discussion describes and analyzes the viewsheds from two different locations along
Huntington Drive, Viewpoints A and B, as the proposed project would have a significant impact on these
focal views. Viewpoints C and D are analyzed under a separate impact statement (Impact 4.1-2), as the
proposed project would cause different effects to these viewsheds. Visual simulations are provided for
each of the viewsheds. In addition, Figure 3-8 (Conceptual Landscape Plan) illustrates the proposed
landscaping at the project site, some of which is described below.
Views from the South, Looking North (Viewshed A)
As shown in Figure 4.1-3 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed A), foreground views of the Specific Plan Area
from residential and commercial uses to the south, as well as from vehicles traveling along West
Huntington Drive, would be altered, but not adversely: this area consists of the existing, paved, surface
parking that would not be developed with any structures under the proposed project. Rather, this
foreground area would include a semi-permeable surface capable of supporting parked cars, such as turf
or turf block.
Along Huntington Drive, from Centennial Way to the bridge entrance at Westfield Santa Anita, the
existing, ivy-covered chain-link fence would be replaced by a 10-foot-wide landscaped buffer (not
including a new 5-foot sidewalk within the public right-of-way) that would begin at the property line and
extend into the CE zone. The landscaped buffer and sidewalk would meander to avoid existing, mature
trees along Huntington Drive, and would also include a decorative fence to replace the existing chain-
link fence. The new fence would be about 40 inches tall and would match, stylistically, the existing
fences along the walking path and Paddock. The fence would be integrated into the planned landscaped
strip, and new landscaping would be low scale to preserve unobstructed views of the proposed

development, the Grandstand, and the mountain back-drop. Currently, the property line occurs
approximately 10 feet from the roadway curb, which would result in a total of approximately 20 feet of
landscaping and sidewalk areas.
Middle-ground views of the Santa Anita Grandstand would be substantially altered with the proposed
development. Specifically, in the western half of this view, the view of the eastern portion of Westfield
Santa Anita and the westernmost portion of the Grandstand would not be altered, but the majority of
views of the Grandstand would be obscured by the proposed development and associated landscaping,
although views of the Grandstand roofline and limited views of the westernmost portions of the
Grandstand would still be available from this location. Although the proposed structures would be
limited to 55 feet, with unoccupied architectural features reaching 67 feet and flagpoles reaching 85 feet
(the height of the Grandstand), the proposed structures in the CE zone would be closer to Huntington
Drive (and the majority of people experiencing this view); consequently, as a result of the difference in
perspective, some architectural elements of the proposed development, such as spires or cupolas, would
appear to reach or exceed the height of the existing Grandstand in the easternmost portion of the view.
As proposed, the project includes a total of three flagpoles, the tallest of which would be 85 feet, with
one at 80 feet and another at 70 feet. The purpose of the taller architectural elements (e.g., the
flagpoles) is to add to the architectural authenticity and integrity of the design, incorporating elements
that currently exist at the top of the Grandstand. Figure 3-10 (Building Heights), which is provided in
Chapter 3.0 (Project Description) of this document, illustrates specific building heights and locations. In
addition, The Shops at Santa Anita Park Architectural Design Review Submittal (Caruso Affiliated,
September 2006) provides a variety of interior and exterior elevations (as Figure 17 through 29).
As previously stated, the majority of the structures of the proposed development would be about 55 feet,
which is about 30 feet shorter than the roofline of the Grandstand. The alignment of the proposed
pedestrian street would provide some space to allow for limited views of the Grandstand, east of the
main southern entrance; however, the proposed structure on the north side of the water feature, as well
as the proposed clusters of shade and specimen trees along the perimeter of the water feature, would
generally obscure this view.
Existing background views of the mountains would remain, and would not be obscured by the proposed
project. However, because the proposed development would obscure or eliminate the majority of
existing focal views of the Grandstand from this location along Huntington Drive, the impact to this view
would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available.
Views from the South, Looking North (Viewshed B)
As shown in Figure 4.1-4 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed B), this area would continue as an access point
from Huntington Drive to the interior of the site and would not be developed with occupied structures
under the proposed project. However, as with Viewshed A, middle-ground views of the Santa Anita Park
Grandstand would be substantially altered. From Viewshed A to Viewshed B, only portions of the roof of
the Grandstand would be clearly visible within the proposed development. Intermittent eastern views of

4.1 Aesthetics
the Grandstand would be available from this vantage point, between proposed new structures and
landscaping. The proposed commercial structures located north and south of the water feature would
obscure the middle view of the base of the Grandstand. In addition, particular architectural elements
within the new development, such as spires or cupolas, would appear to exceed the height of the existing
Grandstand and would create competing views against the palm-tree-lined Santa Anita Park entrance at
Holly Avenue. Although the majority of the structures associated with the proposed project would be
55 feet tall, with architectural features reaching approximately 67 feet tall (18 feet shorter than the
Grandstand), they would appear only slightly shorter than the Grandstand, due to the closer proximity of
the proposed structures to the origin of the viewpoint (i.e., along Huntington Drive). Also, one of the
three flagpoles could reach 85 feet in height and could further obstruct the limited remaining views of
the Grandstand. As a result, although the majority of the existing background views of the upper portions
and ridgelines of the mountains and the foothills would remain, the majority of the existing focal views of
the Grandstand and a portion of the views of the mountains would be obscured by the proposed
development from this location at Huntington Drive and Holly Avenue, and the impact to this view
would be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures are available.
Impact 4.1-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a

substantial adverse effect on the scenic vistas represented by
Viewpoints C and D. Compliance with the identified project
requirement would ensure that this impact would remain less
than significant.
Views from the Southeast, Looking Northwest (Viewshed C)
As shown in Figure 4.1-5 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed C), foreground views of the proposed
development from commercial and public uses to the southeast, as well as from vehicles traveling
northwest along Centennial Way, would only be slightly altered. This area consists of vehicle circulation
and parking areas, as well as associated landscaping just east of the Grandstand, which would remain the
same in the central and northern portions of this view, but the proposed structures would obscure the far
western portion of this view. However, existing and proposed landscaping includes shrubs and shade
trees, which would soften the appearance of the structures in the western portion of the site from off-site
views. Existing, middle-ground views of the central and eastern portion of the Santa Anita Grandstand
would remain. Further, because the Grandstand and the proposed commercial structures would be equal
distances from this viewpoint, the relative heights of the two structures would be more apparent, and the
Grandstand would remain the dominant structure in this viewshed. Similar to existing conditions,
limited background views would be available from this view location following project development.
Because the proposed development would not interfere with the existing focal views of the Grandstand
from this location, and would maintain the Grandstand as the dominant structure in this viewshed, while
only partially obscuring views of the existing southern surface parking area, the impact to this view is
considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Views from the Northeast, Looking Southwest (Viewshed D)
Although the northernmost and southernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area are currently zoned R-1,
and implementation of the proposed project would not change this existing zoning designation for the
northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area, the proposed Specific Plan requires that no residential
development occur in the northern R-1 zone, and only parking and infrastructure improvements would
occur in this area. The following project requirement shall be implemented, as required by applicable
local, state, or federal laws or regulations, or the project’s Specific Plan:
PR 4.1A No residential development shall occur in the existing R-1 zoned northern area of the
Specific Plan Area as part of the proposed project. Surface parking, access, and ground-
level or sub-grade infrastructure improvements will occur and the Racetrack-related
activities will continue.
Project requirement PR 4.1A would ensure that no residential development would occur on the
northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area that could obstruct views of Santa Anita Park structures
or the mountains, or impact Viewpoint D.
As shown in Figure 4.1-6 (Visual Simulation—Viewshed D), foreground views of and through the
proposed development from commercial uses to the northeast, as well as from vehicles traveling south
along West Huntington Drive, would not be substantially altered because the low wall, existing entry
features, and associated sign and ornamental landscaping at the upper “Y,” northeast of Santa Anita Park,
would remain. Although the entrance would be closed and replaced with landscaping and a low wall that
matches the existing wall in scale and color, the new wall would not obscure the Grandstand or existing
fencing around the Racetrack oval.
Middle-ground views of the Grandstand from this location, as well as from vantage points along
Colorado Place, would be slightly altered: the addition of the Simulcast Center into the western wing of
the Grandstand would be visible as a new, vertical surface replacing the upper rows of seats in that
portion of the Grandstand. However, although this represents a change to the existing view, this change
would not be considered adverse, as it would generally be consistent in appearance with similar
modifications that were previously completed to incorporate Sirona’s bar and Frontrunners restaurant
into the Grandstand, and the Grandstand would remain clearly recognizable and would remain the
dominant structure in this viewshed. The previous modifications are visible from this viewshed in the
eastern portion of the Grandstand interior (as viewed from this perspective) and would be immediately
adjacent to the proposed Simulcast Center. Further, the architectural details in the upper portions of the
seating area in the Grandstand, which would be removed with the proposed project, are more difficult to
see from this viewshed because they are shaded by the Grandstand roof. As stated above, the effects of
these modifications on the historic significance of the Grandstand are evaluated in Section 4.4 (Cultural
Resources).
Middle-ground views of the southeastern portion of this view would be slightly altered with the
proposed development, as the eastern edge of the proposed commercial development would be visible to

4.1 Aesthetics
the east of the Grandstand. However, because the majority of the proposed commercial and office
development is about 30 feet shorter than the Grandstand, these structures would be screened by
existing landscaping, as well as by proposed landscaping17, including trees in the eastern parking lot, all of
which would minimize visual competition of the proposed structures with the Grandstand. Further, the
Grandstand would remain the dominant structure and visual element of this viewshed. Similar to existing
conditions, no background views are available in this viewshed following project development. Because
the proposed development would not adversely alter existing focal views of the Grandstand from this
location, the impact to this view is considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
Impact 4.1-3 Construction of the proposed project and associated

infrastructure improvements would not substantially alter the
visual character or quality of the Specific Plan Area or off-site
areas where other improvements would occur. This is considered
a less-than-significant impact.
Construction activities will occur throughout the 85 acre CE zone, including Gate 5 and Gate 8, and
off site for traffic and infrastructure improvements; however, most construction activities would occur in
the approximately 45 acre area including and inside the proposed ring road, where most new buildings
are planned. The proposed project would be constructed in a single phase over about 18 months, with
construction beginning in the third quarter of 2007 and concluding in 2009.
During construction, four basic types of activities would be expected, and some activities could occur
simultaneously. Demolition of existing structures within the Specific Plan Area would occur, which
would include the south ticket gates, portions of the western wing of the Grandstand to accommodate
the Simulcast Center, the Saddling Barn, and four structures in the stable area. The site would be
prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new building foundations. Over-excavation and
recompaction of near-surface soils underlying the Specific Plan Area would occur during grading to
provide appropriate soil characteristics for the support of structures. It is assumed that grading would be
substantially balanced, meaning that no significant quantity of soil would be transported off site for
disposal nor would soil be transported on site for use in construction activities. The proposed
development would then be constructed, including the commercial entertainment buildings, the
Simulcast Center, parking structures, surface parking, project-related infrastructure, and the new
Saddling Barn in the Paddock Gardens. New landscaping would also be planted around the new facilities
and the development would be readied for use, including the application of architectural coatings and
paving (although these two activities would not occur simultaneously).
17
The proposed landscaping would be fully mature within five to ten years of planting.

Construction workers and equipment will be parked and staged within the approximate 45-acre
(primary) construction site, on future building pads and retail surface parking areas, in the area of the
water feature before it is completed, or in the West Parking Deck once it is sufficiently completed to
allow access. Grading and improvements to Parking Area C would occur during the non-racing season
and after the West Deck is completed, so that it is available for track parking at other times. Most of the
Gate 8 realignment work and installation of infrastructure in this area could occur while leaving the
existing access road in operation, or be completed during non-racing days. The Gate 8 access road could
be used for project access by construction workers, track executives and horse owners (who typically use
it now), during the majority of the construction period. Other non-construction traffic and Racetrack
guests would be discouraged from choosing this access road by the use of temporary signs, barricades,
and construction flagmen, except for short periods when temporary track access may be required during
construction of improvements to other access points. The west end of the Gate 8 access, including the
easement area, would always be kept open for access to the mall.
Construction activities associated with infrastructure improvements would also occur in areas adjacent to
the Specific Plan Area, as well as at roadway intersections throughout the City and in neighboring
jurisdictions. Specific activities would generally include demolition (scraping and/or cutting) of existing
asphalt and concrete, grading to establish a new base for roadways and associated buildings, actual
construction of the infrastructure improvements, including re-paving roadways and re-pouring concrete
median and sidewalk elements, and replacement of signals and other infrastructure. In the case of water
line and sewer connections in Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive, respectively, trenching would also
be necessary to access the existing line to which the project infrastructure would connect.
Visual impacts associated with construction activities would include exposed pads and staging areas for
grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located in
the Specific Plan Area during various stages of demolition or construction, within materials storage areas,
or associated with construction debris piles on site and off site. Also, exposed trenches, roadway bedding
(soil and gravel), spoils/debris piles, and possibly steel plates would be visible for the proposed utilities
infrastructure improvements, as well as for roadway improvements.
Although these activities would take place primarily within the Specific Plan Area, these visual impacts
could affect surrounding land uses to the south and east. Automobiles traveling along West Huntington
Drive and Baldwin Avenue in the vicinity of Gate 8 would have short-term views of the Specific Plan
Area during construction activities, which includes a variety of infrastructure improvements, such as
water and sewer connections. Also, motorists and pedestrians in the vicinity of intersections at which
roadway improvements would occur would have views of construction associated with those
improvements. However, these visual conditions would be temporary visual distractions typically
associated with construction activities and commonly encountered in developed areas, and would,
therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact 4.1-4 Implementation of the proposed project would substantially alter

the visual character or quality of the Specific Plan Area.

4.1 Aesthetics
However, compliance with the identified project requirements

would ensure that this impact would remain less than significant.
Development of the proposed project would entail approximately 804,250 sf of retail-commercial uses,
25,000 sf of office uses, and an approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center (to be constructed inside the
western wing of the Santa Anita Park Grandstand, which would not affect the southern façade).
Additionally, the project would expand the existing Paddock Gardens with the addition of 1.4 acres of
open space, which would require demolition of the Saddling Barn and South Ticket Gates. A
replacement Saddling Barn, patterned after the original 1934 Saddling Barn, would be constructed in the
Paddock Gardens, adjacent to the Kingsbury Memorial Fountain.
Commercial/Office Development and Signage
Project-related structures would range from 30 to 55 feet in height (although some architectural
elements could reach up to 67 feet in height, and flag poles could reach 85 feet). As shown in
Figure 3-9A (Site Plan—Ground Level), the structures would be set back well over the minimum of 60
feet from the property line and 150 feet from Huntington Drive. The proposed project would also
include associated parking areas, landscaping, signage, roadways, public walkways, and open space
improvements on an underused parking site. The existing parking lot is a large, asphalted field that
extends from Huntington Drive on the south and east to the southern edge of the Paddock Gardens, with
minimal ornamental vegetation, except for an allée of mature palm trees extending from the Holly
Avenue entrance, sparse mature palm trees along the southern perimeter of the Paddock Gardens, and
minimal lighting—two light standards in the northern portion of the lot, just south of the Saddling Barn,
one light standard in Parking Area A, just north of the north ticket gates, and one light standard in
Parking Area V. Visual quality impacts between the proposed development and existing adjacent land
uses could occur as they relate to the general character of the Specific Plan Area (e.g., increased building
massing), components of the visual settings (e.g., architectural styles, mature landscaping, or signage),
and overall visual compatibility.
Sensitive planning, architectural design and operation of the development will achieve compatibility
between the existing Racetrack and Grandstand facility and The Shops at Santa Anita. Planning concepts
ensuring compatibility include the preservation of historic buildings on the site, maintaining all existing
points of entry to and exit from the property, and orienting the project to preserve the Grandstand’s role
as the site’s dominant architectural feature. The new development will connect to the historic district of
Grandstand and Paddock Gardens, while allowing the traditional operations of the track to continue,
including the pre-race pageantry of horses and jockeys moving from stables to track, and racing
spectators circulating from the Grandstand to the walking ring.
The proposed architecture will evoke the commercial architecture of small town American Main Streets
that have developed over the approximate historic time period that the track and Grandstand evolved,
thereby creating a compatible thematic character. The early- and mid-Twentieth Century Main Street
districts typically include a variety of revival and contemporary styles, both functional and decorative.

Historical development patterns typically create a consistent street-scale controlled by the edge of the
Street, the practical height and clear span limitations of masonry and framed structures, and by the
traditional development of commercial structures into widths of 20 to 50 feet. Specific inspiration for
historical architectural styles and details may derive from Arcadia itself, or from surrounding
communities in the region such as San Marino, Pasadena, Monrovia, and Sierra Madre, and occasionally
from unique examples outside of Southern California, to create an authentically eclectic mix. A few
newer styles may be juxtaposed with older themes, so Main Street has the sense of continuous vitality, of
evolution and change, rather than of a static, theme-park-like tableau. Such a blend of new and old,
smaller scale architectural designs will provide a compatible contrast to the much larger, more unified,
and primarily single-purpose expression of the Grandstand. Where employed, historic styles should not
simply imitate Grandstand details.
Grandstand architecture combines the simple, functional aesthetics of its primary purpose (to shelter
large crowds from the sun and give them optimum views of the Racetrack) with elegant decorative and
historically derived accents at key locations executed by the original architect or added by others over the
facility’s long history. These functional and decorative elements are unified by a muted and consistent
color scheme (green and yellow), and by the dominance of the main Grandstand roof structure and
façade, which maintained a consistent architectural expression (Streamline Moderne) over the
approximately 20-year time span during which it was built. While allowing more interest and variation
to reflect a variety of individual users, a compatible architecture and planning for the new development
would similarly combine simple, functional elements with more decorative flourishes at key locations,
intersections, and uses such as anchor tenants. Unifying elements would include an overall height
limitation that preserves the Grandstand’s dominance on the site, and maintains a low density, suburban
feel for the new development, as does the simple clear circulation diagram provided by Main Street. A
harmonious palette of muted colors, materials, patterns, and plant selections would unify the various
elements of the proposed project and further its compatibility with the Racetrack. Outdoor spaces and
circulation paths would spatially orient toward the Paddock Gardens and Grandstand, and provide
pedestrians a dramatically widening panorama of the Grandstand structure as they move through the
development from south to north.
The designs of the buildings would vary, as noted, and be based on a palette of historic revival styles that
would be selected for their architectural compatibility with the various styles of the Racetrack
Grandstand, and for their attractive proportions and human scale. Exposed elevations of buildings would
incorporate features such as articulated corners, building offsets, balconies, bay windows, projections,
canopies, awnings, and other decorative elements, with particular attention to the pedestrian-level
portions of buildings adjacent to public areas. The finishes, colors and materials in the development
would be varied but cohesive, emphasizing the use of natural materials such as plaster, stone, brick,
patina’d metal, wrought iron, tile, and wood; smaller-scale details would be emphasized where their
visual and tactile qualities can be most appreciated, typically on the lower levels of buildings and adjacent
to public pedestrian ways. Rear façades of buildings that are visible from public areas would be
articulated to provide appropriate architectural scale and interest. Even though the proposed project

4.1 Aesthetics
would represent a substantially more intensive use of the site than the current parking area,
implementation of the substantial setbacks from Huntington Drive would provide a spatial transition and
buffer for adjacent uses. In addition, the height of the proposed structures would be substantially lower
than Westfield Santa Anita and the Grandstand. Though the apparent height of the proposed structures
relative to the Grandstand would be greater, given the proximity of the commercial development to
Huntington Drive, the architecture of the proposed development would be designed to complement and
be compatible with the Grandstand. The following project requirement shall be implemented, as
required by statute, ordinance, code, or the proposed Specific Plan:
PR 4.1B Buildings shall employ a palette of details drawn from a mix of architectural styles
compatible with the existing Grandstand, which would remain the site’s dominant
architectural feature. Building treatments and details shall be selected for their
adaptability to the current use, and will evoke the commercial architecture of small town
American Main Streets that have developed incrementally, and over the approximate
historic time period that the track and Grandstand evolved. Where historic architectural
styles and details are employed, they shall be sensitive to historical examples with respect to
scale, proportion, detail, and the appropriate use of materials and colors.
As described in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), landscaping is proposed throughout the Specific Plan
Area to soften and buffer views of the proposed structures, and would include potted plants, mature
trees, turf surfaces, outdoor furniture, decorative lighting, banners, and other amenities intended to add
variety and contribute to a sense of human scale. Landscaping along the southern and eastern perimeter
of the Specific Plan Area would include the retention of existing, mature trees along Huntington Drive,
the provision of a new 10-foot-wide landscaped buffer and sidewalk, and low-scale (e.g., shrubs)
landscaping from Centennial Way to the bridge entrance at Westfield Santa Anita, turf or turf block in
the parking areas along the southern and southeastern perimeter of the site, and mature trees and shrubs
along internal roadways, and throughout the eastern parking lot. The Gate 8 entryway and access road
would run to an intersection and landscaped parking entrance structure that includes a fountain with
surrounding formal plantings. The water feature would be surrounded by clusters of mature trees,
formal planting beds, and potted plants, as well as a meandering pathway that would link to the proposed
Main Street.
The pedestrian street would extend from the southern water feature to the expanded Paddock Gardens,
and would be designed and proportioned as an authentic street, with curbs, crown, and amenities such as
decorative light poles, benches, and kiosks. Each side of the street would include regularly spaced shade
trees in planting beds and wide sidewalks. As illustrated by Figure 3-8 (Conceptual Landscape Plan), the
street would pass through two plazas as it moves north. The first would be an irregularly shaped outdoor
space with seasonal planting beds, a lawn area, a fountain, and direct access to the west parking
structure. This area would be surrounded by shops and restaurants. The street would then offset to the
east and continue north to a smaller, paved plaza at the intersection of the main pedestrian street with an
entrance passage from the primary valet drop-off/roundabout on the east, and also with a smaller,
alternate curving pedestrian lane leading north and west toward the cinema and Paddock Gardens.

The proposed development would replace portions of an underutilized surface parking lot with
commercial development, open space (a park-like area, outdoor plazas, and a water feature),
landscaping, infrastructure, and associated pedestrian and vehicular circulation in ways that would
enhance the aesthetic fabric of the site and the surrounding area. Spatial buffering would be provided for
the adjacent residential communities through setbacks, and the incorporation of landscaping along the
perimeter and within the Specific Plan Area would provide an additional visual enhancement to the site.
To ensure that overground utility lines will not disturb the visual character or quality of the Specific Plan
Area, all utility lines shall be installed underground. The following project requirement shall be
implemented, as required by statute, ordinance, code, or the proposed Specific Plan:
PR 4.1C All utilities for direct service to the development shall be installed underground
except as otherwise approved by the Public Work Director by precise plan of design. The
developer shall be responsible to make the necessary arrangements as required by the serving
utilities for the installation of such facilities such that service is not interrupted.
This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Also, as described in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description), the project includes a Sign Program. The
objective of the Sign Program is to provide design standards that ensure consistent quality, scale, variety,
illumination, and placement for tenant and project identification, directional and promotional signage
within the CE zone, as well as at other project sign locations within the Specific Plan Area. Signage is an
integral part of the project’s image and appeal, so signs must be carefully designed, placed, and
proportioned with respect to the setting and context in which they occur. Signs should be visible and
legible, without becoming the dominant element. The following requirement and shall be implemented
as required by statute, ordinance, code, or the proposed Specific Plan:
PR 4.1D All new signs in the Specific Plan Area shall comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance
(Section 9262.4 et seq.), unless otherwise specified in the Specific Plan. Three freestanding
center identification signs shall be permitted on the perimeter of the property: one on
Baldwin Avenue and two on Huntington Drive. The total area of each sign shall not exceed
350 sf (including both faces), and each sign may include identification of not more than
six major tenants.
Off-premises signs on the exterior perimeter of shopping center buildings (on the exterior of
parking structures and on exterior commercial building walls) shall be permitted, but shall
be restricted to the identification, trade name and logos of on-site anchor stores,
theaters/cinemas or food market. Off–premises signs, banners, and flags facing internal
streets and open space areas and not directly oriented to the public right of way shall be
permitted. Off- premises signs shall otherwise comply with the City’s Zoning Ordinance
with regard to allowable square footage.
The project would develop two center identification signs on Huntington Drive, along the south and
southeast perimeter of the Specific Plan Area, which would be visible to motorists and pedestrians
traveling in both directions on Huntington Drive, traveling north on Holly Avenue (to Gate 3), and

4.1 Aesthetics
traveling west on Centennial Drive (to Gate 4). The project would develop a third center identification
sign at Gate 8 on Baldwin Avenue. The center identification signs would not exceed 25 feet in height,
which is the tallest sign height allowed under any of the City’s commercial zoning designations (in zone
C-2). While the form of the proposed signs has not been developed in detail, PR 4.1D requires these
signs to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and limits their size
to a total of 350 sf (including both faces). The placement and size of the signs would be generally
consistent with the placement (at major project entrances), size, and function (center identification) of
the existing major signs for Santa Anita Park, particularly the large, existing animated signs at the Upper
“Y” and Gate 8, as well as center identification signs for Westfield Santa Anita on Baldwin Avenue and
Huntington Drive. Further, all exterior building signs would be subject to review and approval by the
City’s Development Services Department for consistency with the Sign Program and/or the City’s
Zoning Code. Consequently, these signs would be generally consistent with the surrounding suburban
commercial development, and would not represent an adverse effect on the visual character of the
project site or its surroundings. This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. No
mitigation is required.
As described above, the project would also allow signs or banners on the exterior walls of major tenants’
structures. These signs would, in effect, be incorporated into the architecture of the external façades of
the affected structures, would be visible from Huntington Drive, and may be visible from Baldwin
Avenue. Similar signs or banners currently exist in the Specific Plan Area: they are suspended from the
elevator towers on the Grandstand and identify Frontrunners restaurant. The continued use of such signs
would, therefore, be generally consistent with current practice in the Specific Plan Area, and, as with all
other signs, would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Development Services Department
for appropriateness and consistency with the Specific Plan and/or the City’s Municipal Code.
Consequently, these signs would not represent an adverse effect on the visual character of the project site
or its surroundings.
Other signs and banners designed for store identification would be oriented internally to face the
proposed Main Street and would be installed primarily on the Main Street frontages or other interior
frontages of project structures. As a result, these project-related signs would not be visible from
viewpoints along the perimeter of the Specific Plan Area, and would not affect those views or the
perception of the character of the proposed development from those viewpoints. Consequently, these
signs would not represent an adverse effect on the visual character of the project site or its surroundings,
and this impact would be considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Paddock Gardens
The existing Paddock Gardens would be expanded to the south with about 1.4 acres of additional open
space areas. The Paddock Gardens expansion would continue the formal geometric landscaping theme of
the Paddock Gardens, with parterres, diagonal walkways, planting beds, and lawn areas. Plantings would
include both new, mature specimen trees, and relocated trees. Development in this portion of the site
would include the demolition of the existing Saddling Barn and the south ticket gate to allow for

construction of the expanded open space area. The Kingsbury Memorial Fountain and associated mature
palm trees and landscaping would remain in their existing location.
The expansion of the Paddock Gardens would replace the existing entry gates and turnstiles at the
southern end of the Paddock Gardens, but would maintain the open feeling of the outdoor gathering
areas and comfortable plazas proposed with the development. Temporary barriers would be erected on
race days in place of the entry gates.
As previously stated, the existing Saddling Barn from 1938 would be demolished, and a replacement
would be constructed on the western portion of the Paddock Gardens, adjacent to the Kingsbury
Memorial Fountain, which would remain in its existing location. The replacement Saddling Barn would
be semicircular and would be constructed to evoke the original, 1934 Saddling Barn, although the
replacement building would be smaller. The replacement Saddling Barn would be located to the
immediate west of the Kingsbury Memorial Fountain, about where the 1934 Saddling Barn was located,
and the bays would be oriented towards the east, and towards the Walking Circle, similar to the existing
Saddling Barn. The scale of the replacement Saddling Barn would be smaller than either the 1934 or
1938 Saddling Barns, and would be compatible with the scale of the Paddock Gardens. Its placement
would maintain the open feeling that currently exists in this area by allowing and reinforcing the
proposed 1.4-acre open space expansion. Architecturally, the structure would be designed in manner
that is reminiscent of and compatible with the existing (1938) Saddling Barn and would incorporate
design features and architectural elements taken from the existing Saddling Barn, where feasible.
Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect to
the visual character of the Paddock Gardens, and this impact would be considered less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
Simulcast Center
The proposed project would also include development of the approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center,
which would be constructed inside the western wing of the Grandstand. The Simulcast Center would not
affect the southern façade of the Grandstand, and thus, would not result in a change to the existing visual
character or quality of the Paddock Gardens or the southerly parking areas. However, the proposed
Simulcast Center would be visible from the Racetrack infield, as well as from the northern parking lot
and Colorado Place. As shown in Figure 3-13 (Simulcast Center—First Floor) in Chapter 3 (Project
Description), the first level would extend under the approximately bottom fifteen rows of Grandstand
seating, and would not be visible from north of the Grandstand. The second floor would be set back
from the first to accommodate Grandstand seating. The width of the façade’s second level would extend
for approximately 420 feet and extend up to the roofline of the existing Grandstand and would be
exposed. Views of the northern portion of the Grandstand would be slightly altered with the removal of
the top 15 rows of Grandstand seating for approximately 420 feet in width; however, the second floor
façade would generally consist of glare resistant glass and framing and would be substantially set back
from the northern roofline of the Grandstand, which would soften the appearance of the new structure,
providing some differentiation while also allowing the structure to blend with the seating around it. Also,

4.1 Aesthetics
the Simulcast Center would be similar in scale and design concept to other, similar additions to the
Grandstand, including Sirona’s bar and Frontrunners restaurant, and would be visually consistent with
those previous additions. Further, as described in Impact 4.4-3 (Cultural Resources), the Simulcast
Center’s design is required to be consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings
and would not be constructed if the standards could not be met. Therefore, the proposed Simulcast
Center would be considered generally compatible with the historic character of the Grandstand.
Consequently, although the Simulcast Center would represent a change in the appearance of the
Grandstand from views from the north, the addition would not represent an adverse change, and the
overall character of the Grandstand’s north side would not be substantially altered, as the Grandstand
would remain visible and the existing sweep of the roof, as well as the overall massing and volume,
would remain unchanged. While the walls of the Simulcast Center may be distinguishable, it will be less
prominent than the Frontrunner’s Restaurant since the proposed element is set back behind the main
cross aisle. Consequently, the impact of the proposed project on the visual character or quality of the
Grandstand would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Threshold Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new

sources of increased daytime glare. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However, implementation of
mitigation measure MM 4.1-5 would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Implementation of the proposed project, which entails development of a site that currently (and
primarily) consists of surface parking, could create substantial new sources of daytime glare from
reflective building surfaces. These new sources of glare could affect daytime views from adjacent
sensitive land uses.
Daytime Glare
As discussed previously, the Grandstand structure was originally painted its green color in order to
reduce glare. While daytime glare is currently at a minimum in the Specific Plan Area, glare could be
produced by the increased amount of surface area of the proposed commercial and retail structures, as
well as the proposed Simulcast Center, which could reflect or concentrate sunlight and result in a
potentially significant impact. However, implementation of design features required by MM 4.1-5,
including the use of non-reflective textured surfaces on building exteriors (including the parking
structures), as well as avoidance of the use of reflective glass, would reduce impacts to off-site uses
resulting from daytime glare from new development:

MM 4.1-5 Design of the proposed structures shall include the use of textured or other non-reflective
exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass.
Implementation of MM 4.1-5 would reduce impacts from daytime glare to a less-than-significant level
by eliminating or minimizing increased glare by the use of non-reflective glass and non-reflective
textured surfaces in the proposed development.
Impact 4.1-6 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new

sources of increased nighttime light. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Compliance with the identified
project requirement would reduce this impact, but not to a less-
than-significant level. Because no feasible mitigation is available
to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this impact
would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Implementation of the proposed project, which entails development of a site that currently consists of
surface parking, could create substantial new sources of light from exterior building illumination and
lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation, including the headlights of vehicular traffic. These new sources
of light could affect nighttime views from adjacent sensitive land uses.
Ambient Nighttime Light Levels and Vehicle Headlights
The Community Development Element of the City’s General Plan acknowledges that new development
south of the Racetrack and east of the mall would introduce a new and potentially substantial source of
nighttime lighting. The General Plan states that site lighting should reflect the nature of the Commercial
land use designation as festive, yet functional. Lighting structures need to be in scale with the
surrounding buildings and be presented as part of the landscape plan. Also, while on-site lighting needs
to be bright enough to promote the general safety of new uses, great care must be taken to prevent
“spillage” of lighting and glare into nearby residential neighborhoods.
There is currently minimal nighttime lighting on the site, with only two light standards in the northern
portion of existing Parking Area C, just south of the Saddling Barn, one light standard in Parking Area A,
just north of the north ticket gates, and one light standard in Parking Area V. There is no lighting in
Parking Area B, which is located north of the Racetrack, adjacent to the “College Tract.” The light
standards in Parking Areas A and V will remain in place, while the two light standards in parking Area C
will be removed. As under existing conditions, no lighting will be provided in Parking Area B.
Nighttime lighting in the immediate area is produced by street lights along West Huntington Drive, and
internal lighting within the commercial, residential, public, and parking lots immediately west
(Westfield Santa Anita mall), south (multi-family residential and Arcadia Community Center), and east
(Arcadia Civic Center and Methodist Hospital) of the site, and vehicle headlights along West Huntington
Drive and Holly Avenue. Thus, mid-level nighttime lighting characterizes the area surrounding the
Specific Plan Area, and low-level lighting characterizes the southerly parking area, such that the addition

4.1 Aesthetics
of new sources of light (building interior and exterior, as well as project signage) as a result of
implementation of the proposed project would increase ambient lighting on the site and at the periphery.
Specifically, as discussed in the Specific Plan, lighting would be used to highlight architectural elements,
landscaping, and building tenant and project signage. Project signage would be regulated by the Specific
Plan’s Sign Program; however, those types of signs that could contribute to an increase in lighting would
generally include wall display panels, canopy signs, or marquee signs, and although the majority of
project signage would be located on the interior of the project, they would contribute to ambient light.
Also, one major sign would be located along Baldwin Avenue and two would be located along
Huntington Drive. Each of these signs is assumed to be lighted. In addition, security and safety lighting
would be provided, as necessary, in parking areas, service passages, and common areas of the project
utilized by employees and visitors during and after commercial operating hours. Further, because
minimal nighttime traffic is present in the Specific Plan Area, increased vehicular traffic resulting from
the proposed development could result in more opportunities for vehicular headlights to affect
surrounding residences. Residential uses located south of the ingress and egress point of Holly Avenue at
the southern end of the Specific Plan Area would be most affected by the increase in vehicular headlights.
The intent of the lighting design is to provide varied ambiance to the nighttime appearance, while
providing a general overall level of illumination consistent with customary municipal safety standards. As
discussed in the Specific Plan, in accordance with the 1996 General Plan, and as required by PR 4.1E,
below, area lighting sources would be subject to fixture height requirements, oriented toward the
ground, wherever feasible, or screened to minimize illumination into the surrounding areas and to
prevent glare or interference with vehicular traffic. Very limited and low-level lighting would be
provided in Parking Area C and other open space areas. In these areas, lighting would be limited to
decorative lighting in trees and along walkways.
Area lighting is intended to illuminate larger areas that are well traveled so as to promote wayfinding and
provide for a safe environment. In addition to area lighting, building lighting would be provided.
Building lighting will be angled towards building surfaces and is intended for aesthetic purposes and/or
to illuminate signs, and would be similar to the building lighting provided in adjacent developments.
Both types of lighting would be designed to avoid direct visibility of the light source. The following
project requirement shall be implemented, as required by applicable local, state, or federal laws or
regulations, or the project’s Specific Plan:
PR 4.1E Lighting structures for surface parking areas, vehicular access ways, and walkways within
the CE zone shall not exceed a height of 25 feet as measured from the ground level.
Lighting within the R-1 zone shall be restricted to 20 feet in height as measured from the
ground level. No lighting standards shall be permitted in Parking Area C other than low
lights not exceeding 36 inches in height and directed to roadways and walkways intended
for safety purposes. Lighting sources shall be oriented toward the ground, wherever feasible,
or screened to minimize illumination into the surrounding areas and to minimize glare or
interference with vehicular traffic.

Although PR 4.1E would reduce lighting impacts to surrounding uses, a substantial increase in nighttime
lighting would still be anticipated to occur on site, as well as in the immediate vicinity. Impacts related to
the introduction of substantial new lighting sources into the Specific Plan Area, including security
lighting of parking areas and signage for new uses, were considered previously by the City in the 1996
General Plan EIR, which also determined that development within the Specific Plan Area would result in
a significant localized visual impact with respect to increased lighting. Consequently, even though
lighting for the proposed project would be designed in such a way as to limit spillover onto adjacent
residential land uses by focusing additional light only on the area to be illuminated, increased ambient
nighttime light levels on the primarily unlighted site would remain substantial and would not be reduced
to a less-than-significant level. Consequently, the increase in nighttime lighting levels in the southern
portion of the Specific Plan Area would remain significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation
measures are available.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

A cumulative impact analysis is only provided for those thresholds that result in a less-than-significant or
significant and unavoidable impact. A cumulative impact analysis is not provided for Effects Found Not to
Be Significant, which result in no project-related impacts.
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative aesthetic impacts varies by threshold. Thus, the
geographic context scenarios are presented individually for the various potential cumulative impacts
identified below.
Threshold Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
For purposes of this analysis, the major natural landform that creates scenic panoramic views within the
City consists of the San Gabriel Mountains. Because views of the mountains are available throughout the
City, the geographic context for panoramic views includes the entire City of Arcadia, as well as areas to
the north, such as Sierra Madre. Views of the Grandstands are primarily held from Huntington Drive to
the south, and the Grandstand interior from Colorado Place. Visual impacts are generally limited to the
immediate vicinity of a proposed project, where views of and from a project area are more likely to be
experienced. Therefore, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to panoramic views includes
locations within the City of Arcadia that have views of the Grandstand or the San Gabriel Mountains.
This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented
by full implementation of the City of Arcadia General Plan, and those development projects within the City
that are identified in Table 3-2 (List of Related Development Projects) in Chapter 3 (Project
Description).
Arcadia is a nearly built-out City. Although views of the mountains are available throughout the City, not
all areas of the City provide the same quality of views—intervening structures and landscaping, as well as
varied topography—limit unobstructed views of the mountains, depending on particular locations.

4.1 Aesthetics
Although it is possible that structures could be built that would block panoramic views, the combination
of existing regulations and local design review procedures, as well as the limited amount of available
undeveloped land, severely restrict the possibility of future development that would substantially block
views of the mountains, as development consists primarily of residential and low-scale commercial uses.
Therefore, cumulative impacts to panoramic scenic vistas are considered less than significant. Also, as
described above, the proposed project would not result in a substantial alteration to views of the
mountains from a public location. The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable
contribution to this impact. Consequently, cumulative impacts to panoramic views of a scenic vista
would remain less than significant.
In addition to the panoramic views of the mountains, the major focal view within areas adjacent to the
Specific Plan Area consists of the Grandstand structure. As discussed above, existing views of the
Grandstand are available from developed uses to the south and east of the Specific Plan Area and from
adjacent roadways. Consequently, the geographic context of the cumulative analysis of focal views of the
historic Grandstand includes areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. Views of the Grandstand in the
areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area have been limited by past development, including Methodist
Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, and the maturation of vegetation along the Huntington Drive median
and along the eastern perimeter of the Specific Plan Area. This past development has resulted in a
significant cumulative impact to the loss of available views of the Grandstand structure.
Although the northernmost and southernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area are currently zoned R-1,
implementation of the proposed project would keep this designation for the northernmost portion of the
Specific Plan Area, as described above under Impact 4.1-1. Project requirement PR 4.1A would ensure
that no residential development would occur on the northernmost portion of the Specific Plan Area that
could obstruct views of Santa Anita Park structures or the mountains.
Because the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area are generally built out and have very little, if any,
remaining development potential, the visual effects of development under the proposed project
represent the majority of the remaining potential to directly affect the focal views of the Grandstand (as
represented by Viewsheds A and B). Consequently, because, as described above in Impact 4.1-1, the
proposed project would significantly reduce focal views of the Grandstand, this reduction would
represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact on these views,
and the cumulative impact of the project to focal views of a scenic vista would be significant and
unavoidable. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this impact.
Threshold Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings?
The geographic context for cumulative impacts associated with the degradation of visual quality is site-
specific and includes the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, those projects that would be
implemented under buildout of the Arcadia General Plan and those cumulative projects within the City
of Arcadia on Table 3-2 (List of Related Development Projects) with views of the project site.

Cumulative development within the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area would not result in a
cumulatively significant impact in terms of a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of
the City. Because the City is a suburban, developed area, it is anticipated that any future projects would
generally be consistent with the community design pattern established in the General Plan and embodied
in the Specific Plan. In addition, future development would continue to be guided by the General Plan
and Zoning Code and would be subject to design review, which would consider the types and placement
of planned development throughout the City. Consequently, changes in land use that would substantially
degrade the area would generally not be permitted to occur under the General Plan or CEQA review,
thereby protecting the visual character of these areas.
The Zoning Code ensures that development occurs consistent with its surroundings, in terms of design,
massing, and building heights. Additional development within the surrounding areas would constitute
further intensification of an already suburban and nearly built-out area and would generally occur
through infill development; therefore, it would not be expected to result in substantial degradation of
the visual quality of the area. Consequently, cumulative impacts would be anticipated to be less than
significant. Moreover, the contribution of the proposed project to such cumulative impacts would not be
cumulatively considerable, because implementation of the proposed development would be compatible
with the surrounding uses, as well as the architectural styles of the Grandstand, as required by PR 4.1B,
and signage would be limited, subject to review by the City and would be required to be consistent with
the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed project’s contribution to this impact
would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
Threshold Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As described above, the City is nearly built out and contains numerous existing sources of daytime glare
and nighttime lighting. The geographic context for both issue areas (e.g., glare and lighting) is site-
specific and includes the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area, including projects implemented under
buildout of the General Plan and those cumulative projects identified in Table 3-2 (List of Related
Development Projects) with views of the project site. Cumulative development within the surrounding
areas could result in some increase in daytime glare, as specific building materials and configurations are
uncertain. However, these potential increases are likely to be minor and consistent with the existing built
environment due to limited development potential and existing City regulations. Further, future projects
would, in many cases, be subject to CEQA review and design review of the applicable lead agency, and
would likely require mitigation for their project-specific effects, which could also reduce project impacts
to a less-than-significant level, depending on the project and the mitigation measures proposed.
Consequently, cumulative daytime glare within the surrounding area would be less than significant. As
implementation of the proposed project would include mitigation to reduce glare, the proposed project
would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. Therefore, cumulative
impacts associated with daytime glare would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than
significant.

4.1 Aesthetics
Development within the areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area could result in the limited creation of
new sources of light that could affect nighttime views. As discussed above, the geographic context of the
cumulative analysis of nighttime lighting includes areas adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. Past
development, including Methodist Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, and surrounding commercial and
residential uses have resulted in a cumulative increase in nighttime lighting within the area, which has
resulted in a cumulative loss of available nighttime views. Because minimal nighttime lighting currently
exists in the southern surface parking area of the Specific Plan Area, and even though direct illumination
of project structures, features, and walkways would be required to prevent spillover light on
surrounding areas, ambient nighttime lighting levels in the area would substantially increase due to
increased future development of Methodist Hospital, Westfield Santa Anita, associated signage along
property perimeters, and associated vehicle headlights. The cumulative impact would be significant.
Because implementation of the proposed development would result in a substantial new source of
nighttime lighting within this area, the proposed project would represent a cumulatively considerable
contribution to the significant cumulative impact, and the localized cumulative nighttime lighting impact
would be significant and unavoidable. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce
this impact.
4.1.5 References
Arcadia, City of. 1996. City of Arcadia General Plan.
———. 2006. Article IX, Division and Use of Land, Supplement No. 3. Arcadia Municipal Code.
California. 2006. Department of Transportation (Caltrans). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/
scenic/schwy1.html, Accessed 10 October.
Caruso Affiliated. 2006. The Shops at Santa Anita Park Draft Design Guidelines, 5 September.
———. 2006. The Shops at Santa Anita Park Draft Specific Plan, 5 September.
———. 2006. The Shops at Santa Anita Park Draft Architectural Design Review, 5 September.
EIP Associates. 2005. Site visit and photos taken by Kelsey Bennett, 14 February.
———. 2005. Site visit and photos taken by T.J. Weule, 27 July.
———. 2006. Site visit by Neill Brower to verify observations of earlier visits, 8 April.
Fabulous Travel. 2006. Something for Everyone at Santa Anita Park.
http://fabuloustravel.com/usa/santaanita/santaanita.html, Accessed 10 October.
LSA Associates. 1996. City of Arcadia General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
95121059) and Technical Appendices, certified on 3 September.
National Trust Historic Preservation. 2005. Santa Anita Racetrack, Arcadia, California.
http://www.nationaltrust.org/11most/2000/santa.htm, Accessed 12 December.

Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. 1995. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Aesthetics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aesthetics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4.

4.1.1 Environmental Setting

 Specific Plan Area Characteristics

Project Location and Boundaries

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-1

Building Description and History

Architecture and Design

4.1-2 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-5

 Adjacent Land Uses

Surrounding Land Uses

Views from the Specific Plan Area

4.1-6 City of Arcadia

Views of and through the Specific Plan Area

Views from the South, Looking Northeast (Viewshed A)

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-7

Future view from Huntington Drive looking northeast

Views from the South, Looking Northwest (Viewshed B)

Views from the Southeast, Looking Northwest (Viewshed C)

Views from the Northeast, Looking Southwest (Viewshed D)

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-11

4.1.2 Regulatory Framework

4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation

4.1-12 City of Arcadia

Future view from Centennial Drive looking northwest

Future view from the “Y” looking southwest

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-19

 Effects Not Found to Be Significant

 Impacts and Mitigation Measures

Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a

4.1-20 City of Arcadia

Views from the South, Looking North (Viewshed A)

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-21

Views from the South, Looking North (Viewshed B)

4.1-22 City of Arcadia

Impact 4.1-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a

Views from the Southeast, Looking Northwest (Viewshed C)

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-23

Views from the Northeast, Looking Southwest (Viewshed D)

4.1-24 City of Arcadia

Impact 4.1-3 Construction of the proposed project and associated

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-25

Impact 4.1-4 Implementation of the proposed project would substantially alter

4.1-26 City of Arcadia

However, compliance with the identified project requirements

Commercial/Office Development and Signage

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-27

4.1-28 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-29

4.1-30 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-31

4.1-32 City of Arcadia

Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-33

Impact 4.1-6 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new

Ambient Nighttime Light Levels and Vehicle Headlights

4.1-34 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-35

4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts

4.1-36 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-37

4.1-38 City of Arcadia

The Shops at Santa Anita Park Specific Plan EIR 4.1-39

Specific Plan Area Characteristics

Adjacent Land Uses

Effects Not Found to Be Significant

Impacts and Mitigation Measures