Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1564 . . . RESOLUTION 1564 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-005 TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE EXISTING 22,000 SQUARE FOOT VONS RETAIL MARKET TO 24 HOURS A DAY AT 133 E. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, on February 11, 1998, an application was filed by The Vons Companies for a Conditional Use Permit to extend the hours of operation for the existing Vons retail market, Planning Department Case No. C.U.P. 98-005, on a C-2 zoned property that is commonly known as the Vons / SavOn Center at 133 E. Foothill Blvd. and more particularly described in Exhibit "A". WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 24, 1998, at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. That the factual data submitted by the Development Services Department in the attached report is true and correct. SECTION 2. This Commission fmds: 1. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity because the initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse affects to the area affected by the proposed project. 2. That the use applied for at the location indicated is a proper use for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized. 3. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use. All yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the 1564 1 . . neighborhood. The proposed project complies with all related zoning requirements as set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code. 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan because the land use and current zoning are consistent with the General Plan. 6. That any new exterior design elements for the subject building are in compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. 7. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit for the existing market to operate 24 hours a day upon the following conditions: 1. That delivery hours be limited to no later than 9:00 p.m. and no earlier than 7:00 a.m. 2. That trash pick-up schedules shall remain as is and at no time shall said pick- ups take place later than 9:00 p.m. nor earlier than 7:00 a.m. 3. C.U.P. 98-005 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 4. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall coilstitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. SECTION 4. The decision, findings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of March 24, 1998, and the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, and . Murphy 2 1564 . NOES: ABSENT: None None SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of March, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Murphy NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bell, Bruckner, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Sleeter, and None None . ATTEST: ~~ Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: ID:idli a~ 0!!: . 3 1564 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT March 24,1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia Planning,Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: William E. Stokes, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 98-005 wM5 SUMMARY' . This Conditional Use Permit application was submitted by The Vons Companies to allow the existing Vons retail market at 133 E. Foothill Boulevard to expand its hours of operation to 24 hours a day. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the applicant's proposal, subject to the conditions outlined in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: The Vons Companies LOCATION: 133 E. Foothill Blvd. REQUEST: To expand the operating hours of an existing Vons to 24 hours a day SITE AREA: Approximately 178,000 square feet (4.1 acres) FRONTAGES: Approximately 406 feet along Foothill Blvd. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: .. The site is developed with the 20,000 square foot Vons market, a SavOn drug store, Bank of America branch, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut, and a small multi-tennartt retail strip. There are approximately'294 on-site parking spaces; zoned C-t. . . . SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING: North: Single-family residential; zoned R-l South: Commercial retail; zoned C-2 East: Commercial retail center; zoned C-2 West: Single-family residential, zoned R-l; commercial retail, zoned C-2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS The subject site provides 294 on-site parking spaces for the Vons facility and the other commercial and retail businesses. The current operating hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., Monday through Sunday. The applicant is requesting to extend such hours to 24 hours a day. The City of Arcadia does not require a conditional use permit to operate a retail market if it operates under "normal" operating hours. This new CUP application is necessary as a result of the proposed 24 hour operation of the store. Staff does not feel that the proposed ho1irS of operation will negatively impact the existing retail establishments or the surrounding neighborhood because there should be a significant decrease in traffic from II :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., provided that the delivery hours are no later than 9:00 p.m. and no earlier than 7:00 a.m. Additionally, Public Hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within a 300 foot radius of the subject shopping center, and at the time this staff report was prepared, the Community Development Division had not received any complaints associated with the proposed hours of operation. CEQA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife . resources.' Therefore, aNegative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMRNDA TION: The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 98, 005 subject to the following conditions: I. That delivery hours be limited to no later than 9:00 p.m. and no earlier than 7:00 a.m. CUP 98-005 March 24, 1998 Page 2 . . . . 2. That CUP 98-005 shall not take affect until the owner and applicant have executed a form available at the Planning Office, indicating awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 3. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Approval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use permit application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration, find that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and approve the resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision, specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Denial , . If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the Commission should make specific finding based on the evidence presented, and move for denial with a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and ,specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this application prior to the March 24, 1998 public hearing, please contact Assistant Planner, William Stokes at (626) 574-5444. . A~~.1A" 1 Corkran W. Nicholson Planning Services Manager Attachments: Site Plan, Land-Use Vicinity Map, Negative Declaration, Environmental Checklist and Information Form, and Discussion of Environmental Evaluation CUP 98-005 March 24, 1998 Page 3 . . .' . of' 10"."4 (1:10). . 1:'.00 108, b!> (I.NI (-""0/ 6 10 '" 1 ~~ -r " F~ ~ .. '! 1",.0\ ....6.00. . !i .. loe.b'" Ie.?. lob VONS .. ~,. .. ~' ..... .. , " SIl."" - , \.t 'J ".c,~: ...., ", '1'- ~ . 'l> 0 .. e , .- .-... ;;.' .. KFe . .!...': .. . v" ...... ........;l. ~ ;..0 ~.! ". ,'. l"):To- .... ,. .~ 1~' P' H t ~\ll: lzza u ....\ 0 ~ '. 6iJ;' .. .. Y= - ..__~4 :: '-. ....... .' ~ . , ~ ... .... 1'/.1/,) h I'M'/,) ,.. IW.\b .:~:;::.::~\;;\.. ~" ..' , : ('! ~ ,:. ~.: ,: :<.' ,.r'o .\ ""~"ih" . " f. ..' , ... '..~., '.".7 .07,'.-<i~ ~ AO PO'".. '1".. '" g . co~ ~ CUP No. 98-005 133 E. Foothili Blvd. 1'l.~."O (/5q) '9':>..,,1 ( 114) ') r~' " -r ,fl !::' ......... 9&.f:l6 ~I.'ZI';;> III tl J-\ ..... 21,'1'" ~?;...o ...---... -. ~ Retail Spaces ~ 9 , .M.8; 7....-:~-3r....-4 '"5 2:i.i 3 . --g '7' "2 , Ie.& McDonalds 'h"~.: 'I,; s;.\N-r;.\ J-\J'I J -r t\ ~ TR;.\C-r .. MJl.,.-4..04Z (/-41 I'Y.> ~ o ......- c:i .. ,)' . . . ~ ,,' ." . FOOTffiLL BLVD. 9!),~T (I~P) ao.~ ' (IG8) ~~ ", "S .(l z J"-f 0 j ~..", 2610.10 '95.:'& SavOn Drug Store , i j .: 1.. ? ~ .t:..... ;~ ;';""1', . ~. , ''''0 I Bank of America '. ~ i ISb.'S \~o I .40 "'/~.:J Sl~ (~!JIrf.2c1 ~ . . ..'~. """I"'.,. .40.(, '1~o I 40 r~ r-\... ,\.. rooq -1"'0<) .,. GO' VICINITY MAP t NORTH Scale: 1 inch = 200 feet . . i i i ~~ ~'/ ~i ~~ ~I ... ~I g:1 3 g 11 . .., "10"" .... 0 ~. ... , ': l) _-----!!!..ll- ~ SAV-ON~ STORE ! ~ , ~ YOM3 ~-. ..- ::~~.: I r. WIIIMJ ~jj~~ .... , . , , . '.. . . . . . .. . .,' ~! ! ..~~ oj " '~J' . , . . . . F"OOTHILL BOULEVARD -, ~~ r j~ !lI~. ~~~H <if' '" :J Z ... > .<( o Z o o '" III II = -:::: . VIClNITY MAP I . ",",--CT M8CRIPTlON .............-........... -'" '" -~-- .. t~ ...... . .... n .....S- "'Ulu.. ..... U1b::eJ,,) fA ::.!.--:a~.J::..--:"""""'::..~:-",,'~~., ~r.:.... PROJI!CT 1IlF0000ATlON Alfl..JCAN/l J:'~ -- !e..=-:::"'~"MSJI ;;:;~, AIftJCANT'8 AOEN1I :r~M" m. .... tII..u . ClIICbCl,IIIJKf'" ........... F'IfO.B::T .cv lll'rlIl'P'_'"'l.u- ......~'tIIf-CI2l ~ zr:lIe ~C'I rnurr::n I r 0IM'1ER: =r,~~M'C_ .....ta.t.S.~tDtlt 1lilIrtlCt:........,.... .....1'..".....1 LEGAL DE8CRlPTION _!7hoG1""," =s.".m:..cr~ "':r.a:.'!~ :t::-,w:M~ ,*,U-=r;lIMllf .:r\....tl'htl: 01"" _.~" W -. r:m.!I.~.:~~~';'\'='RII~d" ....CW~.UlIII.~IOOIO..~... ~...og:c,:t~.~JItUl iWid. ~ cr:: ~~ ~ ....caa.... .. VON.S ""-'- ... """,.,.~.... ,-- lM....Ot.1IIDJI.UII .'II~-- "--Q.nlII".a;e 8m PLUl DRA_ ~- ~lIOLl7IIOIOS ~ --- ---..-....-- --- In tI'I"I'~..... ~CoIUI_'l" tllIlUICI'OllDB ......... -- 8 -- 59 -- 1 of i , MEMORANDUM POLICE DEPAKfMENT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: William Stokes, Planner Rick Sandona, Captai~ CUP 98.004 and CUP 98-005 February 20, 1998 ,! Thank you for the opportunity to review the considerations to open the two Von's stores in Arcadia for 24 hour service. We appreciate the opportunity. . If this is true, the only concern we would suggest would be late night and early morning deliveries generally cause complaints from the local residents at both locations. We often receive complaints from those persons living on Duarte Road around the Pavilions structure as well as those residence living behind the Foothill Von's. We do not know if any reasonable restrictions can be considered, but offer the only problem we see with this suggestion for your consideration. Thanks again for the opportunity to have some review and input. . cc: Ronnie Garner, Chief of Police . . File No.: CUP 98-005 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADLA,CA 91007 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NEGATIVEDECLARA TION A. Title and Description of Project: C.U.P. 98-005 A Conditional Use Pennit to allow the existing Vons retail market to expand its hours of operation to 24 hours a day. B. Location of Project: Retail Shopping Centedocated at 133E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia, County of Los Angeles, California C. Name of Applicant or Sponsor; The Vons Companies P.O. Box 513338 Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338 (626) 821-7047 D. Finding: This project will have no significant effect upon Ihe environment wilhin the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 for the reasons set forth in the attached Initial Study. .c.. i~'1i(lgndoll meu.surcs, if uny, includeu i11 the pruject w avoiLl potentially signiflcanl effects: . h/~8~ W.E. Stokes, Assistant Planner Date: Date Posted: February 12, 1998 February 12, 1998 . . , 7. . CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIvE ARCADIA. CA 91007 E~ONMENTALCHECKLISTFORM 1. Project Title: CUP 98-005 2. Project Address: File No. CUP 98-005 Retail Shopping Center located at 133 E. Foothill Blvd., Arcadia! County of Los Angeles, California 3. Project Sponsor's Name, Address and Telephone Number: The V ons Companies P.O. Box 513338 Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338 (626) 821-7047 4. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Arcadia 240 W. Huntington Dr. Arcadia, CA 91007 5. Contact Person and Phone Number: Planning Services (626) 574-5423 6. General Plan Designation: Commercial Zone Classification: C-2 .s. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A Conditional Use Permit to allow the existing Vons retail market to expand its hours of operation to 24 hours a day. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required. (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The market already exists (change in store hours only) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact thatis a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ~ Land Use & Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services Population & Housing 0 Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems 0 Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics 0 Water 0 Hazards 0 C\l!tural Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Noise 0 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance . E.I.R. Olecklisl 7/95 -2, ~TERMINATION o be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initiai evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 00 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet.have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless Anitigated." mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, ~ut it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. o I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuantto applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ~(5/~ Signature o Febrmuy 12. 1998 Date W.E. Stokes. Assistant Planner Printed Name City of Arcadia For . E.LR. Checklist 7/95 ~3- .V ALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: . .' . 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII. "Earlier Analyses." may be cross-referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section l5063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. E.1.R. Checklist 7/95 -4- . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designations or zoning? (The proposal is consistenl with the Commercial designation in the General Plan and is a use for which is authorized by Section 9251 of the Zoning Ordinance.) b) Conllict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (The proposal will be required to comply with the regulations of any other jurisdictional agency with applicable environmental plans. E.g., the South Coast Air Quality Management District.) c) Be compatible with existing land uses in the vicinity? (The existing use is a grocery store which is consistent with the surrounding land uses.) d) Affect agricultural reSOurces or operations (e;g., impacts to soils or fannlands" or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (There are no agricultural resources or operations in the area.) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (The existing use is a grocery store which is consistentwith the surrounding land uses.) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (The existing use is a grocery store which is consistent with the surrounding land uses.) b) hiduce substantial growth in an area either direcdy or indirecdy (e.g., through projects in an -5, Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] I ] [ ] [ I File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] I I [ I [ ] No Impact [X] [X] [X) [X] [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: undeveloped area or extension of major infrasb11cture)? ('The proposal is consistent with the zone designation and geneml plan.) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (The proposal is consistent with the zone designation and, general plan.) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ('The site for the proposal is not within the vicinity of an identified fault.) b) Seismic ground shaking? ('The site for the proposal is not more susceptible to seismic ground shaking than any other siie in the area. The project will be an existing building that complies with curreot seismic standards.) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ('The site for the proposal is not within the viciirity of an identified fault or liquefaction zone.) d) Landslides or mudflows? (The site for the proposal is on fiat land, and not within an inundation area) e) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ('The proposal is consistent with the zone designation and geneml plan.) f) Subsidence of the land? (The site for the proposal is not in an area subject to subsidence.) g) Expansive soils? (The site for the proposal is not in an area subject to expansion of soils.) h) Unique geologic or physical features? -6- Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ I [ I [ I [ I I) [ I [ I [ I [ I [ I Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ) [ ) [ ] [ I [ ] [ I [ I [ ] [ ) No Impact [X] [Xl [Xl [Xl [X] [X) [Xl [X] IX] [X] CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (No such features have been identified at the site of the proposaL) 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, no such changes are included in the proposa1.) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (The site for the proposal is not within an inundation area.) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect surface waters.) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect any currents or water movements.) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of ground water recharge capability? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposai wiii not affect ground waters.) g) Altered direction or rate offlow of ground water?' (Based on a project'specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) h) Impacts to ground water quality? ,7- Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] I] [ ] File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] I] I I Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact [X] [Xl [X] [X] [X] [X] [X] [Xl CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: (Based on a project,specificscreening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of ground water otherwise available for public water supplies? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not affect ground waters.) 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected aii' quality violation? (The existing grocery store will be required to comply with the regulations of the South Coast Aii' Quality Management District.) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis the proposal will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants.) c) Alter aii' movement, moisture, or temperature or cause any change in climate? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such,affects.) d) Create objectionable odors? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such affects.) 6. TRANSPORTATION I CIRCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (See attached comments.) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., shi\lP curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e;g.,'farm equipment)? (The existing grocery store is ,consistent with the zone designation and general plan. The location that has nOI been identified as hazardous.) -8, Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] File No.: CUP 98-005 potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ ] [ ] I] [ ] [ ] [ 1 Less Than Significant Impact [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [ 1 [ 1 [Xl I 1 No Impact [Xl [X] [X] [X] [Xl [ 1 [X] CEQA Checklist 7/95 . . . Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (The site of the proposed use is readily accessilile and the proposal will not inhibit access' to adjacent or nearby uses.) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (There is adeqllate on-site parking for both the employees and patrons to serve the proposal.) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians'or bicyclists? (Based on a Pl'Oject-specificscreening analysis, there are no existing or potential hazards or barriers to pedestrians or bicyclists.) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Based on a project-specific s~reening analysis, there are no existing or potential conflicts with policies supporting alternative transportation.) g) Rai~ waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal.result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts:) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Locally designated natural communities (e,g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nathave any such impacts.) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? -9- Potentially Significant Impacl [ I [ I [ I [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ 1 File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ ] [ I I I [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ I [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ I [ ] [ ] [ ] [ I No Impact [Xl [X] [X] [X] [Xl [Xl [Xl [X] [X] CEQA Checklist 7/95 File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential ,impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ I [ I [ 1 [Xl (The existing grocery .store is consistent with the zone designation and general plan.) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? [ 1 [ 1 I 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? [ 1 [ I [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? [ 1 [ 1 [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) The crealion of any health hazard or potential health hazard? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such'impacts.) . CEQA Checklist -10' 7/95 File No.: CUP 98-005 r Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Increased fife hazard in areas with flammable brush. grass or trees? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis. the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the . proposal will not have any such impacts.) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altere,d government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? [ ] [ ] [ I [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Police protection? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Schools? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based, on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Other governmental services? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] . CEQA Checklist -11- 7/95 File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or nanual gas? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project,specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Communications systems? [ 1 [ I [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Local or regional water treabnent or distribution facilities? [ 1 [ 1 [ I [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will nol have any such impacts.) . d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the prnposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Stonn water drainage? [ 1 [ I [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) t) Solid waste disposal? [ 1 [ 1 [ ] [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) g) Local or regional water'supplies? [ 1 [ 1 [ 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? [ I [ 1 I 1 [Xl (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) . b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetics effect? [ ] [ ] [ 1 [Xl CEQA Checklist -12- 7/95 File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant . Potentially Un less Less Than Would the proposal result in Significant Mitigation Significant No potential impacts involving: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any'such impacts.) c) Create light or glare? [ I [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis,the proposal will not have, any such impacts.) b) Disturb archaeological reso,urces? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Affect historical resources? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] . (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood onegional parks or other recreational facilities? [ ] I] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any sucb impacts.) . . CEQA Cbecklist -13- 7/95 . . ~ Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a f'tsh or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare ()r endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the m'!ior periods of California history or prehistory? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) b) Does the project have the potential to achieve shori-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (Based on a project-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with~the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project) (Based on aproject-specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Based on a project"specific screening analysis, the proposal will not have any such impacts.) 17. EARLIER ANALYSES No additional documents were referenced pursuant to the tiering, program ErR, or other CEQA processes to analyze any noted effect(s) resulting from the proposal. -14- Potentially Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ I File No.: CUP 98-005 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated [ I [ ] [ I [ ] Less Than Significant Impact [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] No Impact I [Xl IX] [Xl IX] CEQA Checklist 7/95, ~,- , . v FileNo. CAA9 ~R-005 CITY OF ARCADIA 240 WEST HUNTINGTON DRIVE ARCADIA. CA 91007 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM Date Filed: General Information v . 1. Applicant's Name: The Vons Companies ATTN: Jim Houghton Address: P.O. Box 513338, Los Angeles, CA 90051-1338 2. Property Address (Location): 133 East Foothill Boulevard Assessor's Number: '2;>111 ,0'2./' 0'2.G\ ,I 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: Nancy Patterson. Urban SOlutions (619) 350-6255/~aY (61q) 3~O-6?~O 1049 Camino Del Mar, Suite 11, Del Mar, CA 92014 " II Ii " 4. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city. regionalt state and federal agencies: No other permits are reauired 5. 6. Zone,Classification: Commercial General Plan Designation: Commercial Proiect Descriotion v' 8. 9. 10. v ~11. 12. 13. 7. Proposed use of site (project description): The existing use of the site, a Shopping centert ld'1l not change under the requested CUP; the requested CUP is to expand the existing 6AM to IIPM hours of operation to 24 hours a day. Site size: ~1S\\~ tJO CI-\~ e... Square footage per building: 'E,~IS-r'~u. wO ~~E- Number of floors of construction: Existing one story (no ~hangp prnpn~pn) Amount of off-street parking provided: Existing parking provided Proposed scheduling of project: Expand hours ld th the approval of the CUP Anticipated incremental development: None ~, . 14. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizest range of sale prices or rents, and type of household sizes expected: NA . 15. 16. 17. 18. . If commercia It indicate the typet Le. neighborhood, city or regionally orientedt square footage of sales areat and loading facilities, hours of operation: The requested CUP would expand the hours of operation to 24 hours a day for an existing Vons store. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shiftt and loading facilities: NA If institutional, indicate the major functiont estimated employment per shift, estimated occupancy, loading facilitiest and community benefits to be derived from the project: NA . If the project involves a variancet conditional use permit or zoning applicationt state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: Under Sections 9275.1.53. I; ..nn Q?75. 1 .:5::1 7, .. ('TIP i.. r"'q" i rpn I'n;-'. commercial activities between the hours of midniaht and 6AM. Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. . YES NO Change in existing features of any hillst orsubstantiaI alteratin of ground contours. o I]J Change in scemc views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. o w Change in pattern, Scale or character of general area of project. o o o w w Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. w Change in dustt ash,smoket fumes or odors in vicinity. E.I.R. 3/95 ,2- ,.' 24. . YES NO Change in ground water quality orquantityt or alteration of existing drainage patterns. o ~ o o o 25. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. ~ .' 26. Is site on filled land or on any slopes of 10 percent or more. l!l Ii) 27. Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materialst such as toxic substancest flammable or explosives. 0 IKI ~. , 0 IKI II II 0 IKI II 28. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 29. Substantial increase inJossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gast etc.). 30. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Environmental Settinl!: .31. 32. Describe (on a separate sheet) the project site as it exists before the project, induding information on topography, soil stability, plants and animalst any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Describe (on a separate sheet) the surrounding propertiest including information on plantst animals, any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land uses (residential, commercialt etc.)t intensity of. land use (one-famiIYt apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (heightt frontage, set-backs, rear yards, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation. to the best of my abilityt and that the factst statements, and information presented are true and correct to the be of my knowledge and belief. Date . E.I.R. 3/95 -3- . . . 31. The project site is currently developed with a one -story shopping center, including the V ons store. There are no original natural, cultural, historic or scenic resources left on the project site dueto the previous construction of the shopping center. Please refer to the project's photo board for photographs of the site. 32. To the north and west of the project site are single-family neighborhoods. To the south is Foothill Boulevard and other commercial uses. To the east of the Vons store are other commercial uses within the shopping center. The project site and all surrounding properties are fully developed.